W.r.t. the source type being needed, I see the following 4 major cases:

1. src=Prim & dst=Prim -> cast convert. For boolean the least-significant-bit is used to convert it to/from an integer type.
2. src=Prim & dst=Ref   -> box the source value and potentially cast
3. src=Ref   & dst=Prim -> apply an unboxing conversion if possible and then a casting conversion (with same trick for boolean as (1))
4. src=Ref   & dst=Ref   -> reference cast

Without the source type we can't disambiguate between cases (2) and (4), or (1) and (3) because the bootstrap takes Object as an input. For (2) and (4) the bootstrap invocation mechanism takes care of the boxing for us, and the cast is performed by (4). For (1) and (3) the conversion code for the latter handles conversion of wrapper types to Number and then to the target primitive per (1). In the end things seems to work out to the same result (though maybe I'm missing some subtle difference in a failure case).

What I'm mostly worried about is that the source type already affects _how_ the conversion is done, and the fact that this difference is not observable seems somewhat incidental.... Coupled with the fact that asType and explicitCastArguments also have access to both the source and destination type, I think maybe the new bootstrap method should as well. After all, what if the set of cases is extended (valhalla?) and/or not being able to disambiguate starts to matter?

---

I've written a more in-depth specification for the bootstrap, and re-implemented it using explicitCastArguments, since that helps to catch discrepancies between the input value and the source type. Here is the next iteration: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jvernee/8241100/webrev.01

I've kept the source type for now, if it should be removed the specification can be trimmed down (since there would be less cases to specify).

As for the name; I think "asType" might be confusing since the applied conversion is not quite the same as MethodHandle::asType. Since the bootstrap is implemented in terms of explicitCastArguments I went with "explicitCast", how is that?

Thanks,
Jorn

Reply via email to