resolving several ivars to the same capture?

[Vicente Romero]

Hi,

Sorry for joining late to the party :) I don't have too much to add to 
this discussion. My recollection is that as Maurizio mentioned, yes we 
tried a fix in this area but that brought in some compatibility issues 
and we deferred going for any change until we had clarifications from 
the spec side. I think the situation is still the same,

Vicente

On 10/23/25 07:10, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
> Am 23.10.25 um 12:45 schrieb Maurizio Cimadamore:
>> On 23/10/2025 11:25, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
>>> Doesn't 4.10.2 clearly state that type arguments should be captured 
>>> here?
>>
>> Yes, but that means that we will generate “spurious” capture 
>> variables during inference which will end up in the result. Depending 
>> on the case, this might result in failures.
>
> define "spurious"! :)
>
>
>> If this is indeed connected to the spec issue I mentioned above, then 
>> I’d say that it’s sad but also sort of ok for the compilers to 
>> diverge, given that a “real” fix will in reality be a lot more 
>> convoluted than just applying capture.
>
> I understand that changes in this area can easily have big impact, and 
> that investigations to curb undesirable impact require a significant 
> investment. On the other hand also continuously investigating many 
> issues of similar nature causes tremendous efforts over time.
>
> What is the perspective for things to eventually clear up?
> * Will Valhalla enter a stage where the type system needs to be 
> improved in ways that will include general clarifications of matters 
> of wildcards and captures?
> * Otherwise, would it make sense to create a JEP dedicated to such 
> clarifications in order to allocate resources required for this task?
>
> I can offer whatever insights can be gained from ecj as a second 
> implementation, including experiments what impact certain spec changes 
> might have. I personally don't have the full background of type 
> systems sufficient for commenting which spec changes might be sound or 
> bogus, but I do have private contact to someone who has this 
> background. Perhaps for precise questions I could "mediate" some help :)
>
> best,
> Stephan