pbenedict at apache.org
Thu Oct 29 08:53:06 PDT 2009
I think Neal is asking for proof, but the responses given to him are
in the "I believe" category. Is there some way to prove that the "full
complex" approach is not cornered out?
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
<Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com> wrote:
> Neal Gafter wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com <mailto:Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com>> wrote:
>> Neal, the complex-full approach is essentially your approach plus
>> some magic to make the following work:
>> Foo<Object> = new Foo<>(1);
>> That is, a complex approach that takes into account the expected
>> return type in order not to infer a type which is too specific.
>> Such an approach would be compatible with the currently
>> implemented simple approach (in fact, ANY other approach that
>> takes into consideration the expected return type would be
>> compatible with the simple approach).
>> Are you telling me that you're confident that such "magic" can be
>> specified, and implemented, and retrofitted onto the implementation of
>> generic method invocations and argument contexts, without any deep issues?
>> If so, I'm satisfied.
> I think such an approach does exist - on the other hand if it didn't, it
> would mean that there is no way (other than the simple approach) to support
> the use case I mentioned several times in this thread.
More information about the coin-dev