Specification amendment (was: JDK-8219318 (???): inferred type does not conform to ...)

[B. Blaser]

Thanks for the confirmation, Maurizio.

It may be that I would like to write a draft for this amendment to the
JLS for submission to our spec experts.
Should I then post it to this mailing-list, file a CSR with the draft
inlined or do anything else?

Bernard

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 16:37, Maurizio Cimadamore
<maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> > The problem is that when inferring 'n(m())' the bounds 'X <: I(W),
> > I(Integer)' implies 'W=Integer' per §18.3.1 but with 'o(m())' the
> > bounds 'X <: I(W), I(? extends Integer)' should probably imply 'W <:
> > Integer' instead of inferring 'W=Object'.
> >
> > So, I did a voodoo cult devoted to inference which ended up with some
> > black magic on our good old friend 'Types::isSameType', see below.
> >
> > While this experiment is somewhat incomplete, both examples 'putAll()'
> > and 'o(m())' are now working without any 'langtools:tier1' failure.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> This extension is, more or less, what I was expecting/suggesting - but I
> think this is more of a question for our spec experts (there might be
> subtle reasons as to why this wasn't done already).
>
> Maurizio
>
> > Bernard