On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au> wrote: > Remember the compiler doesn't type check dynamic code conversion, only > static conversion. Dynamic happens at runtime. Services are dynamic, > discovered at runtime.
As I said, I believe that with one additional proviso (which can be enforced at runtime), all dynamic casts will be correct. To recap, that proviso is abolishing unassigned type variables from Entry classes. Could be mistaken. Would be interested in a counter-example. The proposal is to use method-level generics, as follows: <T extends Entry> T read (T template) The primary effect of this change is upholding the stated contract of read/take, while reducing boilerplate. When we had our first discussion of generics, a corner case was pointed out that was problematic with or without generics. Some felt it was worse with generics. The corner case can be removed, as I outlined. If the casts are always correct (counter-example welcome), there might still be something objectionable about this change... but I'd appreciate some clarification as to what that objection is. I don't believe that any annotations or fancier tools will be necessary. I hope to submit a patch for the generics branch in the next few days, unless the discussion proves the idea untenable. > Peter. james
