List<String> stringList = ... ;
   Collections.sort(stringList,
      Comparator<String>(String s1, String s2) {
         return s1.length() - s2.length(); 
      }
   );

At first i thought why not include the method name as follows, for clarity.

   Collections.sort(stringList, 
      Comparator<String>.compareTo(String s1, String s2) {
         return s1.length() - s2.length(); 
      }
   );

Then i remembered, i just prefer the old familiar anonymous classes, and i'm not much interested in shorthand.

Take abbreviations for instance. Abbreviation is the Clarity-Killer, which passes through you and all that remains is Confusion. Programmers, that don't use IDEs, are not lazy enough! And inconsiderate. They leave a trail of broken windows like abbreviations and inconsistent names, and code in need of refactoring, which they can't fix - because they don't use IDEs! That's why not using IDEs is the root of all evil ;)

Anyway enough of that nonsense. Let's consider Swing event handlers.

   okButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
       public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { 
          okActionPerformed();
       }
   });

The following shorthand would avoid the method declaration.

   okButton.addActionListener(new ActionListener().actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { 
      okActionPerformed();
   });

And the following is as shorthandish as one could possibly make it, as in the above-mentioned proposal.

   okButton.addActionListener(ActionListener(ActionEvent e) { 
      okActionPerformed();
   });

Considering that in Matisse, Netbeans generates and hides this code, and in general IDEs generate anonymous class methods for you, to save those keystrokes, is there really a need for such a shorthand notation? It goes towards having multiple ways to do the same thing (The Bad), and towards less keystrokes for IDEA-less Clarity Killers (The Ugly), and anyway what's wrong with anonymous classes (The Good, The Verbose and The Clear)?