Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters

Paul Benedict pbenedict at
Fri May 15 20:43:10 PDT 2009

After reading this board for a couple months, I was waiting for
someone to finally make this suggestion:

>>  Cell<String> cs = new Cell(1);
>>  treated as :
>>  Cell<String> cs = new Cell<>(1);

YES! I think Ali Ebrahimi is making a noteworthy point here. Unless
the compiler can't possibly figure it out (???), there is never a need
to specify <> (empty angled brackets) when the genericized type on the
left-hand side exists. It's should be obvious in the grammar that
constructing new objects should be genercized regardless <> is

-- Paul

More information about the coin-dev mailing list