PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals

Kevin Bourrillion kevinb at
Wed Mar 11 08:55:09 PDT 2009

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebourne at> wrote:

> - Constructor literals have to be included. If you don't then
> developers will find it an unexplained gap. See FCM section 2.2 which
> uses Type#(argTypes)

Yes, and the worst case scenario is to mimic the Javadoc syntax:

> - I would use Field/Method/Constructor, as a key goal is to enable
> integration with existing frameworks.

Absolutely positively.

> - I believe that adding generics to Field and Method (the return type)
> is a key part of this change.

Is it possible to keep that API change and this language change orthogonal?

Kevin Bourrillion @ Google
internal:  http://go/javalibraries

More information about the coin-dev mailing list