Removal of function types
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Wed Jul 7 16:13:05 PDT 2010
The underlying problem with this counterexample is the need for primitive
types. In lots of situations, it might be reasonable to live with boxing and
then you only need k*9^1 SAM types, but when you really need to abstract over
primitives in this way, it becomes k*9^n for n > 1.
I don't have a good answer. But I don't think adding function types meets the
cost/benefit analysis as a means of solving this problem either.
On 7/7/2010 7:05 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 07/07/10 13:18, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> I suggest using this thread to comment on the removal of function types :-)
> As one of the instigators-by-counter-example of function types,
> I do wonder what the plan is for providing dozens if not
> hundreds of SAM types for (parallel) aggregate operations.
> As in my infamous workarounds at:
More information about the lambda-dev