> De: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> > À: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com>, "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Lundi 15 Avril 2019 22:53:49 > Objet: Re: RefObject and ValObject
> I think we should be ok inference-wise, except of course for edge cases (like > vars) which exposes the guts of the inference engine. > In normal cases like: > List<Object> list = List.of(new Foo(), new Bar()) > the equality constraint on the LHS should force a solution which overrides the > new 'RefObject' bound that comes in from the RHS. > (that is, you have T = Object, then T :> Foo and T :> Bar, so T = Object > 'wins', > even if less precise) > Maurizio yes, i think you're right, Rémi > On 15/04/2019 21:39, Brian Goetz wrote: >>> 1) any codes that has inference >>> var list = List.of(new Foo(), new Bar()); >>> will be inferred as List<RefObject> instead of List<Object>, so calling a >>> method >>> that takes a List<Object> will not compile anymore. >> Not to dismiss the “what about inference” issue, but any code that combines >> `var` with `List,of()` should not be surprised at the result of inference …. >> But, “what about inference” noted. >>> 2) any code that consider Object as special class may stop working, dynamic >>> proxies that have a special case for Object, any code that reflect >>> recursively >>> on the hierarchy to find all the methods, any code that remove getClass() >>> from >>> the getter list, etc. >> Absorbing value types is going to require some changes on the part of most >> frameworks to get best results. This one seems in that category? >> Again, not to dismiss, keep them coming, but so far this isn’t scaring me >> away >> from having the object model that makes most sense.
