It predates type erasure. I'd imagine this will be fixed with type system unification in some post-8 version of Java.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Fabrizio Giudici < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:42:08 +0200, Casper Bang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It's obviously related to type-erasure, > >> but >> why on earth didn't the Java compiler guys burn in a rule that would add a >> "return null" if the signature is Void? >> > > Laziness in the design of the compiler. I don't know any other solution > than returns null and yes, it's a bit annoying for me too. > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s. > "We make Java work. Everywhere." > http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/**blog <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 javaposse+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <javaposse%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>. > > -- 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.
