Reflection on records

[Artyom Drozdov]

Yes, it sounds like an issue without good solution.
For me sounds ok for your example having just raw types:

Method hello = Foo::hello[Object];

But I understand it could be non-intuitive for most users. Another approach
would be to allow your notation:

Method hello = Foo<T>::hello[T];

But disallow specifying types like:

Method helloString = Foo<String>::hello[String];


пн, 1 дек. 2025 г., 20:21 Attila Kelemen <attila.kelemen85 at gmail.com>:

> One thing I can think of is that generics makes life a hell here, and can
> spawn a lot of reasonable questions with non-obvious answers (especially if
> you still believe in reified generics in the future, and try to prepare for
> it).
>
> So, if you have
>
> ```
> interface Foo<T> { String hello(T a); }
> ```
>
> Then if you write (in your notation): `Foo<T>::hello[T]`, where T is a
> type argument, then you have to return `Object.class` as the parameter type.
>
> However, if you have `Foo<String>::hello[String]`, then one could
> reasonably expect it to return `String.class` as the parameter type, but
> doing so would also be strange, because the actual type (queried via
> reflection) would be `Object.class`.
>
> Not to mention that `hello` can be overloaded with a concrete type, but I
> guess that is a theoretical problem even in today's Java.
>
> Attila
>
>
> Artyom Drozdov <artyomcool2 at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2025. dec. 1.,
> H, 19:59):
>
>> Symbolic reflective constants is a something I was always dreamed about.
>> I'm currently using old-but-gold CLDC HI for my pet project and I'm
>> really struggling without class literals (so I'll probably add them).
>> The same way I feel about fields/methods references. I suppose it was
>> discussed before, but it would be great to know, why can't we ask user for
>> the full signature? Like:
>>
>> Method m = Foo::method[String, int];
>>
>> Or even (argument names here is an optional hint for the reader and
>> IDE/linters):
>>
>> Method m = Foo::method[String name, int size];
>>
>> Of course, the syntax is not something that really worth to discuss here.
>> Probably, we might want to specify the return type as well, but, again,
>> that's about syntax.
>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20251201/d22f2ef2/attachment-0001.htm>