The case we're looking at is int vs. int-as-Object-by-way-of-Integer.
The int/Integer conversation hasn't factored in here at all, unless
you can show how Charlie's reading somehow pulls in the stuff.

~~ Robert.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Neal Gafter <n...@gafter.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <head...@headius.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Attila Szegedi <szege...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The question however is whether these solutions we perceive as intuitive
>>> can indeed be formally valid under some set of consistent rules, without
>>> running into a contradiction.
>>
>> In answer to you and Neal, it seems there's a simple way to improve the
>> spec to provide the "intuitive" result (or at least the result most people
>> here seem to find intuitive: treat primitives as more specific than Object
>> (and potentially over boxed numeric types as well). My (mis)interpretation
>> of the Java spec for Mirah's compiler works this way currently; primitives
>> are given priority over reference types unconditionally, since the
>> alternative *requires* a boxing conversion. If you have to walk through a
>> conversion to get there, you're walking into a less-specific signature.
>
> The "old" javac algorithm treated boxing and unboxing conversions
> symmetrically.  But you cannot have both int more specific than Integer and
> vice versa.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "JVM Languages" group.
> To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> jvm-languages+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM 
Languages" group.
To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
jvm-languages+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.

Reply via email to