list literal gotcha and suggestion

[Joshua Bloch]

I suspect we'll always provide immutable but otherwise unspecified
implementations.
         Josh

2009/9/28 Ruslan Shevchenko <rssh at gradsoft.com.ua>

> > Le 29/09/2009 06:43, Joshua Bloch a Иcrit :
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Paul Benedict<pbenedict at apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Josh,
> >>>
> >>> I thought the proposal used brackets or braces depending on what was
> >>> the
> >>> left-hand side of the assignment.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> If I have my facts straight, I would like
> >>> to see a proposal where that's not the case and only one is actually
> >>> used.
> >>>
> >>> List<String>  stringList = { "1", "2", "3" };
> >>> Set<String>  stringSet = { "1", "2", "3" };
> >>> Map<String, String>  stringMap = { "1" : "A", "2" : "B", "3" : "C" };
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> This sort of "target typing" is notoriously tricking from a
> >> type-theoretic
> >> perspective, and there's very, very little of it in Java.  I would be
> >> reluctant to introduce more of it.
> >>
> >
> > The question here is, what is the runtime class of foo, if foo is
> > defined like that :
> > Collection<String> foo = { "1", "2", "3" };
> >
>
> Why this situation differ from
>  List<String> l = { "1","2","3","4" };
> (l will be ArrayList or LinkedList ?)
>
>  if we know, that for 'List' exists default implementation class, then we
> can or bind default implementation class to collection, or just say that
> Collection have no default implementation class.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I don't think it matters if { } or [ ] is used, but not both.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> As above, I don't know whether it would be practical to have once syntax
> >> do
> >> double duty.   I haven't even tried to specify it.
> >>
> >>             Josh
> >>
> >>
> >
> > RИmi
> >
> >
>
>
>