Static fields in specialized classes
pbenedict at apache.org
Wed Oct 15 15:24:27 UTC 2014
For the record, I don't find it funny or annoying how erasures exist. I am
generally content with the current all-to-1 mapping. I was hoping when
valhalla started, the implementation sought would be to unify primitives
and objects into one type hierarchy (could be represented in <?>), but the
current implementation does seem to further the schism of objects and
primitives. Schisms are bad. I agree with Stephen again on this. I think
specializing with primitives should keep the current all-to-1 mapping --
despite whatever happens to the bytecode underneath.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org>
> On 15 October 2014 15:19, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
> > The fundamental question for an implementation of generics is the mapping
> > between types and classes. (List<String> is a type; List.class is a
> Isn't the issue that the class concept is being split into two
> different meanings?
> List<String> is a type (unchanged)
> List<int> and List<T> are distinct bytecode units
> List is the single piece of source code and overall concept
> Are we not debating which of the last two the current Class concept
> best maps to?
> I'm arguing that it is the concept that I want to refer to in code
> (instanceof, method signature, overloads), as that is far more common
> than a need to think about the bytecode unit (reflection).
> > In Java 5, all instantiations of List<X>, for reference X, mapped to
> > List.class; this is an all-to-1 mapping. This is simple but everyone
> > to think this is smelly and complains about it a lot.
> I think those are mostly "noise" complaints. Developers have fully
> internalised this all to 1 mapping at this point and I'd disagree with
> the "everyone complains" statement.
More information about the valhalla-dev