Maurizio.Cimadamore at Sun.COM
Thu Oct 29 09:04:34 PDT 2009
Paul Benedict wrote:
> 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?
What do you exactly mean by 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