On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:39:13 +0200, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Martijn Verburg
<[email protected]>wrote:
Tentatively scheduled for 9 or 10 - I'd prefer to see 9 personally but
appreciate its a non trivial change ;-)
But why? I'm still struggling to find out why some people feel so
strongly
about the importance of reified generics. If you spend some time thinking
about the implications and costs of reified generics, you actually
realize
that the need is rare and that even in such situations, type literals (or
similar) can get you very far, and that erasure comes with many more pros
and less cons than reified generics do.
I captured these thoughts in this
article<http://beust.com/weblog/2011/07/29/erasure-vs-reification/>a
while ago, I'd love to hear if your use case for reified generics is
not
covered there.
I pretty much agree with you. So I'm more relaxed knowing that it probably
won't ever happen (because, guys, saying after Java 10 today means well
beyond the horizon).
I presume this statement makes me much more of a Java senior lobbyist,
doesn't it?
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
"We make Java work. Everywhere."
http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog - [email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
