----- Mail original ----- > De: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts" <valhalla-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Mai 2019 19:54:17 > Objet: Re: It's not safe until it's in the coffer
> On 09/05/2019 13:35, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote: >> yes, it's verbose by design. > > I object to this a bit. if it's just a bit :) > > There will be cases where using nullable projection will be _the only_ > way to solve certain problems (e.g. to build value types that can > reference to themselves). Forcing an heavy syntax on these cases seems > punitive. it's notheavy, it's bulkier than the V? syntax > You seem to assume that, once we have specialized generics, > people will just use them and forget about nullable projections. I don't > think that's the case, and some internal discussions we started (e.g. to > sprinkle values on HashMap implementation) seem to point in that > direction too. no, i don't assume that, i assume that the nullable projection is a double edged sword so you can use it at your own risk but for that you have to opt-in and not use randomly V or V? because you don't want to know the difference. > > Maurizio Rémi
