> > 1) Optional definition site variance. When I want co or contra- > > variant type parameters now I have to litter my code with Foo<? > > extends Bar> or Foo<? super Bar>. It's so painful I mostly don't > > bother making my types as general as they could be. > > How would this work? I don't think the scala strategy (cartoon > swearing instead of 'extends' and 'super' keywords) is viable.
Reinier, I think it's a great idea, you just have to use it in the right spots. If I recall correctly the example on scala-lang.org was an immutable list -- obviously a list of Strings is also an immutable list of Objects; ImmutableList<? extends Object> list = new ImmutableList<String>(); is very verbose and casting is plain dirty. PS: It was an immutable stack: http://www.scala-lang.org/node/129 With kind regards Ben --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
