Expected distribution of lambda sizes (Re: Syntax poll, take 2)

[Brian Goetz]

Yep, unfortunately deprecating raw types is not in the scope of Project 
Lambda :(

On 6/15/2011 2:43 PM, John Nilsson wrote:
> Of course the interesting difference is between theese two
>
> interface GenericSAM {
>    <T>  T m(Pair<?,T>  p);
> }
>
> interface RawSAM {
>    Object m(Pair p);
> }
>
> BR,
> John
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore
> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>  wrote:
>> On 15/06/11 18:43, John Nilsson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *) Pair#fst is compatible with a SAM type whose method is m(Pair)
>>>> *) Pair<>#fst is compatible with a SAM type whose method is of the kind
>>>
>>> Ah, there you go. Forgot about this "interesting" aspect of the type
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable though? When would it, in practice, be important to
>>> enforce this difference?
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> John
>>
>> class Pair<X,Y>  {
>>   X fst() { return null; }
>>   Y snd() { return null; }
>> }
>>
>> interface SAM {
>>    Integer m(Pair<Integer,String>  p);
>> }
>>
>> interface RawSAM {
>>    Object m(Pair p);
>> }
>>
>> class Test {
>>
>> static void call(SAM s) { System.out.println("1"); }
>> static void call(RawSAM s) { System.out.println("2"); }
>>
>> public static void main(String[] args) {
>>    call( Pair<Integer,String>#fst ); //prints 1
>>    call( Pair#fst ); //prints 2
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>