Question about error message for primitive type arguments[Re: The compiler rejects <void>this/super().]

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Yep - this is deliberate - in the sense that I got the constructor call 
working in the same way method call code does - but I still need to plug 
some holes in both. I.e. this code used to produce a diagnostic very 
similar to the one you described:

class Main {
     public <E> void m(Object o) {}

     public Main()
     {
         this.<int>m(null); // Illegal
     }
}


This was before/after the fix. So, now the implementation is consistent 
in terms of constructor vs. method calls. Now we have to add one more 
extra check to reject primitive types (other than void) as explicit 
type-parameters. More specifically, we also need to reject 'void' in 
case the corresponding formal parameter is not a thrown type-parameter.

Maurizio

On 08/03/12 18:52, bitter_fox wrote:
> Thank you for the fix.
>
> I have a question about the error message for primitive type arguments.
>
> Old javac says "unexpected type" for this.<int>m(), <int>this/super() 
> and Clazz<int>.
> However, today's implementation says it only for Clazz<int>.
> It says another massage for this.<int>m() and <int>this/super():
>
> Main.java:9: error: no suitable constructor found for Main(<null>)
> <int>this(null);
>                 ^
>     constructor Main.Main() is not applicable
>       (actual and formal argument lists differ in length)
>     constructor Main.<T>Main(Object) is not applicable
>       (explicit type argument int does not conform to declared 
> bound(s) Object)
>   where T is a type-variable:
>     T extends Object declared in constructor <T>Main(Object)
> Main.java:10: error: method m in class Main<T> cannot be applied to 
> given types;
>
>                 this.<int>m();
>                     ^
>   required: no arguments
>   found: no arguments
>   reason: explicit type argument int does not conform to declared 
> bound(s) Objec
> t
>   where T is a type-variable:
>     T extends Object declared in class Main
>
> Was this change intended?
>
> Regards,
> bitter_fox
>
> 2012/3/8 Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com 
> <mailto:maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>>
>
>     On 08/03/12 09:46, bitter_fox wrote:
>
>         class Main
>         {
>             public<throws E>  Main(Object o) {}
>
>             public Main()
>             {
>         <void>this(null); // Illegal
>             }
>         }
>
>     Nicely spotted - thanks!
>
>     Maurizio
>
>