Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Thu May 14 16:52:00 PDT 2009
Am 15.05.2009 01:11, Neal Gafter schrieb:
> This cannot be an error unless the Java Language Specification
> requires it to be an error.
So my proposal is to change the JLS in a way, that it requires to be an
Cell<String> cs = new Cell(1);
should be defined as an error for generic type T as parameter of a
constructor, if literal/expression is not assignment compatible to the
substitution of T on the LHS.
> The language specification does not currently require it to be an error.
> I have no idea what change you are proposing to the specification
> that would result in it being an error. Without knowing that, I
> cannot evaluate your proposal.
Sorry, I don't get what you are not understanding. Maybe english
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>> wrote:
> Am 15.05.2009 00:56, Neal Gafter schrieb:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>>> wrote:
> So no functionality would break, if this accordingly would be
> upgraded in the Java Language Specification?
> I have no way to tell without knowing what specification
> change you have in mind.
> I mean, to determine
> Cell<String> cs = new Cell(1); //unchecked warning
> as error from compiler side.
> My guess is, that this problem could be managed by javac option
> "-source 1.7", to remain compatible, but I'm not sure if there are
> some reasons against this.
More information about the coin-dev