Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters

[Ulf Zibis]

Am 15.05.2009 02:05, Neal Gafter schrieb:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de 
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>     Am 15.05.2009 01:11, Neal Gafter schrieb:
>
>         This cannot be an error unless the Java Language Specification
>         requires it to be an error.
>
>
>     So my proposal is to change the JLS in a way, that it requires to
>     be an error.
>
>
> You haven't actually proposed any specific JLS changes.
>  
>
>     Statement:
>
>       Cell<String> cs = new Cell(1);
>     should be defined as an error for generic type T as parameter of a
>     constructor, if literal/expression is not assignment compatible to
>     the substitution of T on the LHS.
>
>
> Yes, it should be.  How, specifically, do you propose to do so?  This 
> looks like an example, not a specification.
>  
>
>
>          I have no idea what change you are proposing to the
>         specification that would result in it being an error.  Without
>         knowing that, I cannot evaluate your proposal.
>
>
>     Sorry, I don't get what you are not understanding. Maybe english
>     language problem.
>
>
> Let me put it this way: what specific text do you suggest adding to or 
> removing from the Java Language Specification, and where would the 
> changes be made?
>

OK, I got it.
But please let the church in the village.

I think you got the content of my "comments". ;-)

If a mayor asks some architects for a new town hall, they shouldn't 
start constructing it, before the the mayor has decided for 1 design, 
and additionally they wouldn't do it by their own hands, they would 
encourage a company, which has the skills, to do it.

As non-native speaker and not author of the original proposal I only 
feel capable in the role as commenter, but not constructor.

-Ulf