Exception transparency

[Rémi Forax]

Le 08/06/2010 08:31, Neal Gafter a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Brian Goetz<brian.goetz at oracle.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>>   I conjecture that a new syntax may not be needed at the declaration site
>>      
>>> at all; it can be inferred from the explicit bound on the type parameter
>>> instead of vice-versa, simplifying the syntax and making it more
>>> familiar.  Specifically, you can treat any type parameter as a throws
>>> type parameter if its bound is Throwable or a subtype.  There is no need
>>> to restrict where the type parameter may be used.
>>>
>>>        
>>
>> I suspect we might regret that.  When you try to write a class like
>>   class ExceptionList<T extends Exception>  implements List<T>  { ... }
>> you'll find that the compiler has guessed your intentions incorrectly.
>>
>>      
> The only place where it makes a difference (assuming BGGA is followed for
> exception transparency) is in the application of the lub() operation during
> type inference.  The influence of that operation is actually rare in places
> where it would make a difference.  In short, I don't think the compiler
> needs to guess any intentions where it will affect realistic code.
>    

Neal,
I have trouble to figure out an example of such rare places.

Do you have an example of such code ?

Rémi