(Sorry to postpone answering this one while tied up in logistics...)
On 07/11/13 08:23, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
On 07/11/2013 04:16 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
(I've been contemplating re-exploring alternatives in TLR,
but the options are more limited because it is a subclass
of Random. Which made
I think I understand what you are saying. However, unless we make
Optional not final, the extends part just doesn't matter.
You probably know that the example provided is not completed ported to
work with our Optional implementation, and fugue works around the type
system with Option as abstract
I think the type you talking about here is Optional? extends U instead of ?
extends OptionalU.
IIRC, Optional? extends U is not a subtype of OptionalU, just like any
other Collection class. ListChild is not a ListParent.
Cheers,
Henry
On Jul 13, 2013, at 3:15 AM, Jed Wesley-Smith
XYChild is not a subtype of XY? extends Parent. We have to go
wildcard all the way - X? extends Y? extends Parent.
The subtyping rules don't care about final-ness of types. For example,
XString is a distinct type from X? extends String, even though
String has only one subtype (itself).
Zhong Yu
Another example of possible missing a wildcard
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/jsr166/dist/docs/java/util/concurrent/CompletionStage.html#thenCompose%28java.util.function.Function%29
thenCompose(Function? super T,? extends CompletionStageU fn)
should be
thenCompose(Function? super T,?
On 12/07/2013 11:57 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
I see closeability as a postcondition. A subtype can't weaken it. The
contract of AutoCloseable says its a resource that must be closed. Now
MHCR says it can/should/doesn't have to be closed -- so it is backwards.
A postcondition of what? pre- and
It's a post-condition to using the object. I've emphasized the must part
of the contract but the full contract is: must be closed when it is no
longer needed. That's a pretty clear post-condition language that must be
true. So when you're done with the AutoCloseable type, as in the
post-condition,
On 15/07/2013 2:47 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
It's a post-condition to using the object. I've emphasized the must
part of the contract but the full contract is: must be closed when it
is no longer needed. That's a pretty clear post-condition language that
must be true. So when you're done with the
Joel, Peter,
I've looked at the synchronization changes and the use of CAS and it
seems sound.
The only performance-related concern is the wasted effort when multiple
threads each call new AnnotationType(annotationClass). But if that
turns out to be an issue we can address it (using
