On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having given it more thought, I'm willing to admit that yes, variance > may be necessary (or very near to it). This is more than a little > annoying though. Covariance is not a problem in and of itself, and > follows nicely by the standard subtype checker. Contravariance screws > everything up. Use site variance is essential if you want declaration > site variance to have any positive impact on your language, and now > you're getting back into dangerous waters. > That's strange. C# has declaration-site variance without use-site variance, and we find it has a positive impact on the language. Am I missing something? -- 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.
