> > I fully agree, it's like getting ride of Integer, it's a fantasy, but not > having a lot of API taking a N? as parameter type make that fantasy actually > possible for the libraries you care.
We can’t get rid of Integer, but maybe we can make it 10x less important. That would be winning. > V? as box allow that too. As i said there are two use cases for V?, not yet > reified generics is one, backward compat is the other. UndefinedTermException: “box” is ambiguous > Part of the appeal of the proposal is that if we cripple N? so remove the > subtyping relation and this is debatable, i think also the capability to call > fields/methods on it, the semantics is the same a classical box from the type > system POV Classic boxes have accidental identity. Are you really proposing that we take the accidental-identity problem from these eight types, and give them to all values? Yuck! Please, let’s be more specific about what you mean by box.
