Notes on implementing concise calls to constructors with type parameters

[Ulf Zibis]

Am 15.05.2009 01:57, Alex Buckley schrieb:
>
>>
>> Yes, you got it. This is exactly what I wanted to say.
>> This potentially would make constructs like
>>   Cell<String> cs = new Cell<>(1)
>> _superfluous_.
>>
>> My additional question was, if anybody has an idea, if that would 
>> break some other things, I'm not aware of.

I'm again really ASKING about potential side effects, we and I didn't 
consider until now.


>
> Obviously dropping raw types has an impact anywhere that type names 
> can be used. Since that's every class, interface, and variable 
> declaration, I'm not sure we need to spend much time calculating how 
> it would affect people moving pre-1.5 code to 1.7 - it obviously stops 
> them cold.


BTW: those pre-1.5 people won't have code like:
    Cell<String> = new Cell(1);

... as generic syntax was not known in those 1.4 times.

-Ulf