My thoughts on the dynamic keyword - from what I understand of it, this would applied at the field/parameter level, making operations on only those object references dynamic.
This would mean that yes - you may loose some static analysis of code paths using those (but only those) objects. However, the cases were I'd see I'd probably use this functionality would be where I was about to head into ugly reflection code, being able to cleanly handle this with nice readable code would be rather nice. And of course we'd extend FindBugs and the like to just flag any usage of dynamic as -potentially- unsafe/smelly code. I'm sure there's probably some form of type-inference that could be done on the calling side of the code to infer any/all potential types coming into the code path (based on known usages). On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Jay R. Wren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As for addition of dynamic, all I can say is that if you don't like > it, don't use it. :) > -- "It is easier to optimize correct code than to correct optimized code." -- Bill Harlan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
