Possible typo in the documentation?

Support
1

Sorry if I’m posting this in the wrong category. Please let me know if there’s a better channel to report this.

https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/lambdas.html#lambda-expression-syntax

The full syntactic form of lambda expressions is as follows:

val sum: (Int, Int) -> Int = { x: Int, y: Int -> x + y }

…
If we leave all the optional annotations out, what’s left looks like this:

val sum = { x, y -> x + y }

x and y must still have explicit types specified, right?

There’s another one that I found here
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/this-expressions.html#qualified

Qualified this

To access this from an outer scope (a class, or extension function, or labeled function literal with receiver) we write this@label where @label is a label on the scope this is meant to be from:

class A { // implicit label @A
    inner class B { // implicit label @B
        fun Int.foo() { // implicit label @foo
            val a = this@A // A's this
            val b = this@B // B's this

            val c = this // foo()'s receiver, an Int
            val c1 = this@foo // foo()'s receiver, an Int

            val funLit = lambda@ fun String.() {
                val d = this // funLit's receiver
            }


            val funLit2 = { s: String ->
                // foo()'s receiver, since enclosing lambda expression
                // doesn't have any receiver
                val d1 = this
            }
        }
    }
}

This part

            val funLit = lambda@ fun String.() {
                val d = this // funLit's receiver
            }

has to be changed to

            val funLit = lambda@ fun String.() {
                val d = this@lambda // funLit's receiver
            }
2

x and y must still have explicit types specified, right?

I think no, this example just demonstrates the minimal possible form of a lambda. It doesn’t necessarily have to be compilable out of context.

has to be changed to

Unqualified this refers to funLit’s receiver here, so it’s correct.

3

Thanks, you’re right about the lambda example. Will fix this.
By the way, you can propose minor documentation fixes via the Edit Page button on the doc pages.