PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals

[Kevin Bourrillion]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:

> - Constructor literals have to be included. If you don't then
> developers will find it an unexplained gap. See FCM section 2.2 which
> uses Type#(argTypes)

Yes, and the worst case scenario is to mimic the Javadoc syntax:
ArrayList#ArrayList(int).


> - I would use Field/Method/Constructor, as a key goal is to enable
> integration with existing frameworks.

Absolutely positively.


> - I believe that adding generics to Field and Method (the return type)
> is a key part of this change.

Is it possible to keep that API change and this language change orthogonal?


-- 
Kevin Bourrillion @ Google
internal:  http://go/javalibraries
google-collections.googlecode.com
google-guice.googlecode.com