Fun with method references

[Howard Lovatt]

The area that I didn't solve was arrays of function types, I could only do
these by erasing the type (i.e. non-reified). Since all the proposals have
this problem of erased function types in arrays, including BGGA, I think the
characterisation 'unsound' is a tad strong. Or are you saying that all
function type proposals, including BGGA, are unsound?

On 7 August 2010 13:11, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> Why are you sending pointers to a proposal that has been shown to be
> unsound?
>
> -Neal
>
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 9:13 PM, Howard Lovatt <howard.lovatt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Rémi,
> >
> >> Not a good example, in my opinion.
> >> using SAM interfaces instead:
> >>
> >> interface Foo1 {...}
> >> interface Foo2 {...}
> >>
> >> void foo(Foo1 foo) { ... }
> >> void foo(Foo2 foo) { ... }
> >
> > But this is easily resolved with a cast
> >
> >> interface Handler<A> {
> >>   public int handle(A a);
> >> }
> >>
> >> void foo(Handler<String> stringHandler) { ... }
> >> void foo(Handler<Bar> barHandler) { ... }
> >
> > This is the exactly the same problem that happens with erased function
> types
> > and I assume that we don't want is more of these problems. The only way
> out
> > of this problem for function types (and generics) is to reify them:
> >
> > http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=278567
> >
> >  -- Howard.
> >
>



-- 
  -- Howard.