Function types versus arrays

[Neal Gafter]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com> wrote:
>> This is all true, but the facts of the universe we live in have
>> conspired against us.  We should if we can, but we can't.
>
> Can't is a strong word.  All we can say is that it would involve VM change.
>  It may be worth that.

It would involve reifying generics uniformly (i.e. everywhere), which
is not backward compatible.  It may be worth that to you, but I think
it would be a disaster.

>> I should add that Howard relaunched this thread with the idea of
>> relaxing Java's usual assumption that a subtype conversion preserves
>> the identity of the reference.  I don't think that relaxation actually
>> solves the problem, and it does break other things in the language.
>> But it is worth spending some time determining if and how it breaks.
>
> I do not think this is a good idea. It violates the principle of least
> astonishment by sacrificing a fundamental truth of the language ("casting an
> object reference to an object reference type does not change its identity).

I don't think it is a good idea either, (nor do I think it works) but
it was you who said that we should do whatever it takes to make arrays
of functions work.  Perhaps you want to rethink that position.