Huston, we have a problem !

Neal Gafter neal at
Sun Mar 6 17:36:27 PST 2011

2011/3/6 Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at>

> 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>:
> > 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
> X<>("")
> > 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 mailing list