Huston, we have a problem !
neal at gafter.com
Sun Mar 6 17:36:27 PST 2011
2011/3/6 Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com>
> Much as I agree with everything you said, this is old ground that was
> gone over before and rejected by Oracle (then Sun). All the same
> points have been made in the past, but yes it is frustrating that good
> arguments haven't won the day. In summary, not worth bringing up again
> until coin 8.
Howard: I don't think have have understood Zdeněk's argument. To quote:
> 2011/3/6 "Zdeněk Troníček" <tronicek at fit.cvut.cz>:
> > My answer is here (I also post it on my blog at
> > ... Now, if
> > we changed the semantics of new X("") to new X<String>("") (or new
> > with the diamond syntax), the code would behave differently. So, the
> > answer to the title question is 'yes'. If we want to stay backward
> > compatible, we need <> and we cannot put new X("") semantically equal to
> > new X<>("").
In short, Zdeněk's good argument did in fact win the day.
More information about the coin-dev