PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
Schulz, Stefan
schulz at e-Spirit.de
Thu Mar 12 02:55:23 PDT 2009
Bruce wrote:
> If that line of reasoning is followed (and I agree it is
> worth pursuing) then
> the proposal would then be incomplete if you did not extend
> it to cover type
> literals as well, both as type literals per se and allowing
> them as annotation
> element values. Currently class literals cannot represent
> instantiations of a
> generic type. If we allow field and method literals of
> generic types, but don't
> address the lack of a generic type literal, we haven't gone
> far enough.
Isn't this rather something to complement reification of generic types? I think this is out of scope for the given proposal, but maybe I am wrong and it's just a snap.
> Following that line of reasoning, and that the type literal
> doesn't have a
> obvious place to put the # consistently with field and method
> literals, maybe
> the solution is to use # in a bounding form like these
> #ArrayList<String>#
> #PrintWriter.out#
> #ArrayList<String>.add(String)#
Well, one could reuse the class keyword:
ArrayList<String>#class
Stefan
More information about the coin-dev
mailing list