Or perhaps that is LWn (1 < n < 10).
> On May 17, 2018, at 12:05 AM, John Rose <john.r.r...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, for experimental purposes any special javac check that blocks VTs from
> genetics needs<LW1> to have a command line switch to unblock, so we can see
> by special experiment where exactly VT erasure breaks generics.
>
> On May 16, 2018, at 7:53 PM, Dan Smith <daniel.sm...@oracle.com
> <mailto:daniel.sm...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>>> On May 16, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com
>>> <mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No support for any interaction between values and generics _whatsoever_ (I
>>> said minimal!)
>>
>> You clarified that this means the compiler actively rejects types like
>> List<Point>. Not clear to me what would prompt that—it's more work for the
>> compiler, the JVM doesn't care either way, and it's easy for users to work
>> around (use a raw type).
>>
>> But the quality of language support will be "crappy ad-hoc" anyway, so, you
>> know, whatever works. I'm just happy to have a compiler at all!
