Small things Java lets you do, but not everywhere.

[Remi Forax]

Please before submitting a wishlist, please take a look at this video that explain what can be the cost of a change (even if in this case, it's a really small change it's only a VM change) 
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_IicifbxQ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_IicifbxQ ] 

regards, 
Rémi 

> De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Mardi 21 Août 2018 13:57:51
> Objet: Fwd: Small things Java lets you do, but not everywhere.

> Received via the spec-comments list. Not a comment on any specific extant
> project; instead, a wish-list, and mostly stuff we’ve seen before — array
> literals, generic maps, union types.

>> Begin forwarded message:

>> From: Jeremy Barrow < [ mailto:jeremy.a.barrow at gmail.com |
>> jeremy.a.barrow at gmail.com ] >
>> Subject: Small things Java lets you do, but not everywhere.
>> Date: August 13, 2018 at 6:59:33 AM EDT
>> To: [ mailto:amber-spec-comments at openjdk.java.net |
>> amber-spec-comments at openjdk.java.net ]

>> Heyo, I just wanted to send off a quick email about some of the things that
>> I think would be easy pickings for Amber to tackle.
>> More specifically, they're things in the language that are either not
>> completely fleshed out due to lack of interest, or, more likely, for some
>> technical reason.

>> The first one is definitely array literals:

>> I've been using Java for 7ish years at this point, and honestly, I don't
>> even know if I'm gonna get this right.
>> The only place I'm aware of array literals being valid is for a field write.

>> Not many people use arrays, as Lists are just better, but _very_
>> occasionally you do have to reach for an array.
>> It would be nice if we could expand the array literal use case.
>> Just about everywhere an expression could be expected, I think an array
>> literal could be valid.
>> I can image `return` statements working really well with it, and with the
>> new expression switch, the break with value.

>> I'll be honest, this is where the "easy pickings" part is no longer true.

>> Class local generics (Field local generics?):

>> I definitely think I'm not the only one who has written some static field
>> that has a map which maps some arbitrary data container to some value, with
>> the data container containing some type parameter that tells you what the
>> value type is.

>> `private static final Map<Key<?>, ?> data = ...`

>> It would be a massive boon, if we could write that as something like:

>> `private static final <T> Map<Key<T>, T> data = ...`

>> Otherwise we have to cast everything we pull out of the map.
>> I know it's of the correct type, but the compiler doesn't.
>> This leads to some annoying stuff where generics aren't actually helping
>> you, which is a bit counter intuitive.
>> We have generics for methods, theoretically, it should be possible for
>> fields.

>> Union types:
>> Now, I'll preface this with this might be difficult to translate into the
>> VM right now, so erasure might be the only option for now (With type
>> signatures being a possible route in the future).

>> In a nutshell, declaring fields with union types.
>> Right now, I either have to declare three different fields, making my
>> memory usage suffer if I have tons of these objects (Which I normally do,
>> because this specific class is a Token class for a lexer, and I parse
>> massive input sources), also making it more error prone due to having three
>> different ways to access the same data.
>> Granted union types won't solve the last problem, but it doesn't help it.
>> Technically, Java does have union types in catch signatures.
>> Obviously, the catch signatures kinda get "collapsed", so it's not really
>> the same, as there's a lot more needed under the hood here.
>> Possibly.
>> I think a quick prototype might be just to treat it as though I had written
>> something like, and just erase it to Object:
>> `private final <T extends String | Integer | Double> T data;`
>> Obviously, we don't have union generics, so that would obviously have to be
>> added, and honestly, I think that might be the can of worms I didn't plan
>> on.

>> So, I'll wrap it up there.
>> Obviously, the generics and union types are quite.. large in scope, and
>> aren't really easy, but I do think the array literals are something that
>> could be touched on.

>> Cheers,
>> Jeremy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20180821/b281f93e/attachment-0001.html>