Reducing verbosity for generics

[Johannes Spangenberg]

> and any implementation of withFoo() would just have to return an 
> object with type compatible with Builder<T>.

With these rules, the compiler would allow the following code, although 
it is broken:

    public class Builder { // May have sub-types
         ...
         this.class copy() {
             return new Builder(this);
         }
         ...
    }

Anyway, there are probably solutions to make it work in most situations 
using more elaborate rules for the type system. I guess you could also 
argue that it is OK that the compiler cannot detect the broken code 
above, and the application should just throw a ClassCastException. After 
all, it wouldn't be the only case where broken code is not detect at 
compile time. However, I think such change would require careful 
consideration of different solutions to the problem (and whether the 
problem justifies special syntax and rules).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20240610/4e807fb5/attachment-0001.htm>