Closure conversion vs silly type parameter
Mark Mahieu
mark at twistedbanana.demon.co.uk
Wed May 14 01:18:19 PDT 2008
Thanks Neal. I also ran into this:
public class WrongFoundType {
static <T extends {=> void}> void foo(T block) {
block = { ==> };
}
}
Attempting to compile it yields an 'incompatible types' error as
expected, but the 'found' type substituted into the error message is
incorrect (should be '{ ==> void }' not '{ => void }'):
WrongFoundType.java:4: incompatible types
found : { => void}
required: T
block = { ==> };
^
1 error
Regards,
Mark
On 14 May 2008, at 07:00, Neal Gafter wrote:
> Looks like a bug. Thanks for reporting it! I'll tell you when
> it's fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Neal
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Mark Mahieu
> <mark at twistedbanana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> This one has me scratching my head a bit. The following (rather
> odd) class compiles successfully despite there being a checked
> exception thrown which is never caught or declared to be thrown in
> the method signatures:
>
>
> public class Hmmm {
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> foo() {
> throw new Exception();
> }
> }
>
> static <T extends {==> void}> void foo(T block) {
> block.invoke();
> }
> }
>
>
> Interestingly, the following version, which assigns the closure
> literal to a variable of the corresponding function type first,
> fails to compile (which is as I'd expect).
>
>
> public class Hmmm2 {
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> { => void throws Exception} f = {=> throw new Exception(); };
> foo(f);
> }
>
> static <T extends {==> void}> void foo(T block) {
> block.invoke();
> }
> }
>
>
> Reading the closure conversion and function type subtyping rules
> again, I can't see why one would be allowed and the other not...
> any clues as to what I'm missing here?
>
>
> Mark
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/closures-dev/attachments/20080514/a1d8ac1d/attachment.html
More information about the closures-dev
mailing list