java 6 compiler bug or ...

[Neal Gafter]

That doesn't make sense as a fix.  The reason for this error message is to
enable compiling generics via erasure, but methods with return types whose
erasures differ don't have VM signatures that conflict.  One would think
that maintaining backward compatibility is more important that mindless
compliance with a specification that matches no previous implementation.
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the specification to allow what makes
sense to allow rather than break compatibility?

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:07 AM, maurizio cimadamore <
maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 06/06/2011 09:31, Ali Ebrahimi wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This test case compiles with java 6 compiler, but current compiler
> rejects
> > that.
> >
> > public class Test {
> >
> >      static Integer call(List<String>  ls) {
> >          System.out.println("ls");
> >          return 0;
> >      }
> >
> >      static void call(List<List<String>>  lls) {
> >          System.out.println("lls");
> >      }
> >
> >      public static void main(String[] args) {
> >
> >      }
> > }
> >
> > current compiler error message:
> > error: name clash: call(List<List<String>>) and call(List<String>) have
> the
> > same erasure
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Ali Ebrahimi
> >
> Hi Ali,
> this is a JDK 6 bug that has been fixed in JDK 7 - as a result of a
> merge, the lambda compiler picked up that fix.
>
> Maurizio
>
>
>