Isolating one small issue for now:
On 12/23/2015 10:52 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
Doing nothing about List.remove(index) seems to be legal option.
Yes, that's a legal option (just as today, you can overload foo(T) and
foo(String)). Not sure if it *should* be a legal option (at the very least, the
compiler should warn you of this, as it should also probably with overloads that
fail to follow a meet rule.)
No
existing code will encounter an ambiguity that is not already present
due to autoboxing (for List<Integer>). New code using or implementing
List<int> will need some way to disambiguate. But I think that some
syntax will be needed to allow anyway. It might be nice introduce
method removeAt to reduce need to use this syntax, but doesn't seem
necessary?
Can you expand on what you might want for disambiguation here?
Not sure; possibly nothing considering that users already (since jdk5)
live with this compiling without warning:
import java.util.*;
public class RemoveInteger {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> c = new ArrayList<Integer>();
c.add(1);
c.remove(1);
System.out.println(c);
}
}
Running ...
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 1, Size:
1
at java.util.ArrayList.rangeCheck(ArrayList.java:659)
at java.util.ArrayList.remove(ArrayList.java:495)
at RemoveInteger.main(RemoveInteger.java:8)
