PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals

[Noel Grandin]

Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Field<Period> f = Period#ZERO;
> Method<String> m = String#toUpperCase();
>
> public void process(Method<String> method) { ... }
>
> This allows frameworks to be specific about the type of method or
> field they will accept.
>
>   

I can see the benefit for Field, but for Method I think you're wasting
your time.

Frameworks will be more interested in the parameters of a method rather
then return type, but I can't see any way of encoding that into the
generic parameters,
because we can't do a variable number of type parameters.

I would rather leave Method as a raw type, possibly something to solve
in the future when Java's generic type system becomes more powerful :-)

Regards, Noel Grandin

Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html