Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters
Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Fri May 15 02:57:38 PDT 2009
Am 15.05.2009 01:57, Alex Buckley schrieb:
>> Yes, you got it. This is exactly what I wanted to say.
>> This potentially would make constructs like
>> Cell<String> cs = new Cell<>(1)
>> My additional question was, if anybody has an idea, if that would
>> break some other things, I'm not aware of.
I'm again really ASKING about potential side effects, we and I didn't
consider until now.
> Obviously dropping raw types has an impact anywhere that type names
> can be used. Since that's every class, interface, and variable
> declaration, I'm not sure we need to spend much time calculating how
> it would affect people moving pre-1.5 code to 1.7 - it obviously stops
> them cold.
BTW: those pre-1.5 people won't have code like:
Cell<String> = new Cell(1);
... as generic syntax was not known in those 1.4 times.
More information about the coin-dev