A syntax option (function types versus arrays)
neal at gafter.com
Mon Mar 1 18:32:38 PST 2010
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
> I don't find this argument convincing. As I understand it, you're saying
> that function types and disjunction types will have the same level of
> runtime support as generics. So they should have the same level of
> expressiveness as well: it should be possible to describe, but not create
> (except implicitly for varargs) arrays of these types.
I don't find this argument convincing. You're saying that because
something else that is useless appears in the language, we should
provide more useless things by analogy.
More information about the lambda-dev