ion kicks in in the javac.
> MethodHandle.invokeWithArguments therefore takes
> an array with 1 element (the element being 'elements' array) and tries to
> invoke the underlying
> asList method with it. This time it observes that the method is not a varargs
> method, (because
>
tain by unreflect should give you the same behavior of
> MH.invokeWithArguments() as using
> Method.invoke().
... cut ...
On 11.06.2018 16:37, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
... cut ...
> Indeed, this seems to solve the problem, which is really great as this
> problem can be put to rest
On 11.03.2018 20:22, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> Well, still trying to find out what the reason is, that core reflection's
> invoke behaves
> differently to MethodHandle's invokeWithArguments in one single case so far
> (using the method
> java.utli.Arrays.asList(...)).
>
>
Hi Peter,
once more: thank you very much for your explanations, efforts and patience! :)
On 10.06.2018 17:04, Peter Levart wrote:
> I showed you some code samples in Java language, so I had to explain what
> java compiler is doing
> too, for you to fully understand what's going on. You see,
Well, still trying to find out what the reason is, that core reflection's
invoke behaves differently
to MethodHandle's invokeWithArguments in one single case so far (using the
method
java.utli.Arrays.asList(...)).
Here is a little Java program that excercises reflective access to
h Arrays.stream(array) each
time a stream is needed.
It is as if the object returned by Arrays.asList(...) is being handled
differently if using the core
reflection invoke(...) compared to using MethodHandle.invokeWithArguments(...)
for unknown reasons
(the arguments are processed the same in b
John, thank you very much for your kind reply and hints!
On 02.03.2018 02:47, John Rose wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:59 AM, Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at
> <mailto:rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at>> wrote:
>>
>> While testing a rather complex one (an adapt
it run with both, the core
reflection and the
MethodHandle invocation versions.
---rony
On 03.03.2018 19:02, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> John, thank you very much for your kind reply and hints!
>
> On 02.03.2018 02:47, John Rose wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:59 AM, Rony G.
