Overload resolution simplification
ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 14 16:18:26 PDT 2013
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> On 08/14/2013 10:03 AM, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
>> Sorry, Maurizio, I can't agree on this.
>> I think we should be consistent in all cases. So if we want unification
>> why we add primitive specialization of SAMs and Streams. May be they are
>> hacks as mangling method names to overcome compiler's weaknesses and will
>> be deprecated in future.
> Binary compatibility of such mangling will hamper many possible futures.
> So better we have a clear view from future and make decisions based on
> We have a not totally clear view of the future, but one possible future is
> to teach the VM that Integer is a value type
> (exactly Integer constructed using Integer.valueOf will be value type).
So some Integers would be value types and some not. And we would have
primitive types, Integer types and Integer->value types.
I think this is not intend of Maurizio from unification that may affect
overload resolution & type inference.
More information about the lambda-spec-observers