Reference implementation

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Paul Benedict wrote:
> I think Neal is asking for proof, but the responses given to him are
> in the "I believe" category. Is there some way to prove that the "full
> complex" approach is not cornered out?
>   
What do you exactly mean by cornered out?

Maurizio
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
> <Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Neal Gafter wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>>> <Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com <mailto:Maurizio.Cimadamore at sun.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Neal, the complex-full approach is essentially your approach plus
>>>    some magic to make the following work:
>>>
>>>    Foo<Object> = new Foo<>(1);
>>>
>>>    That is, a complex approach that takes into account the expected
>>>    return type in order not to infer a type which is too specific.
>>>    Such an approach would be compatible with the currently
>>>    implemented simple approach (in fact, ANY other approach that
>>>    takes into consideration the expected return type would be
>>>    compatible with the simple approach).
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you telling me that you're confident that such "magic" can be
>>> specified, and implemented, and retrofitted onto the implementation of
>>> generic method invocations and argument contexts, without any deep issues?
>>>  If so, I'm satisfied.
>>>       
>> I think such an approach does exist - on the other hand if it didn't, it
>> would mean that there is no way (other than the simple approach) to support
>> the use case I mentioned several times in this thread.
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>>
>>     
>
>