javaforeachlambdaanonymous-inner-class

Java - changing the value of a final variable from within a lambda

In Java I have the following code 

List<Integer> myList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i=0;i<9;i++) {
    myList.add(i);
}

Integer sum = 0;

myList.forEach(i -> {
    sum = sum + i; // does not compile, sum needs to be final or effectively final
});   

for(int i : myList) {
    sum = sum + i; //runs without problems
}

My question is, why is it exactly that I cannot change the value of sum from within the lambda? It does the exact same thing as the for loop down below, or am I wrong? Interesting is also the fact that if I declare the Integer sum outside of the main method as static, it works as well. Can anyone explain me why?

EDIT: In another similar question Does Java 8 support closures, the answer seems to be :

it is a combination of backwards compatibility and project resourcing constraints.

However I still cannot understand why it works if I make sum an array or if I declare it outside of main. I would also like to understand what is the difference between the myList.forEach and the for loop below, why the one works and the other one doesn't.

Solution

  • Try with:

    final Integer[] sum = new Integer[1];
sum[0] = 0;

myList.forEach(i -> {
    sum[0] = sum[0] + i;
});

    Since lambda is actually a syntactic sugar for initializing an anonymous class (and overriding a method).

    It's the same as if you have written:

    final Integer[] sum = new Integer[1];
sum[0] = 0;

myList.forEach(new Consumer() {
    public void accept(Integer element) {
        sum[0] = sum[0] + element;
    }
});

    The variable that comes from outer scope and that you use within inner scope must be final (in this example sum). That is simply because Java does not support closures. Therefore, outer variable must be marked as final. Since Integer itself is immutable (if you declare it final, you cannot change it anymore), you have to use a wrapper object or an array (as I did).

    You can find more useful info here: