Removal of function types

[Brian Goetz]

The underlying problem with this counterexample is the need for primitive 
types.  In lots of situations, it might be reasonable to live with boxing and 
then you only need k*9^1 SAM types, but when you really need to abstract over 
primitives in this way, it becomes k*9^n for n > 1.

I don't have a good answer.  But I don't think adding function types meets the 
cost/benefit analysis as a means of solving this problem either.

On 7/7/2010 7:05 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 07/07/10 13:18, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> I suggest using this thread to comment on the removal of function types :-)
>>
>
> As one of the instigators-by-counter-example of function types,
> I do wonder what the plan is for providing dozens if not
> hundreds of SAM types for (parallel) aggregate operations.
> As in my infamous workarounds at:
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/jsr166/dist/extra166ydocs/extra166y/Ops.html
>
> -Doug
>
>