JEP 186: Collection Literals

[Ali Ebrahimi]

Hi,


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Ali Ebrahimi
> <ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > May be this JEP include Indexing access syntax for Lists, Sets and Maps?
>
> operator overloading? ...
>
No. We have already Indexing access syntax for arrays I just say extend
this support to Lists, Sets and Maps as well.
I don't propose full operator overloading.


>
> > And what about primitive collections, we have primitive Streams but still
> > no true primitive collections. (from performance perspective). I just say
> > avoid boxing and unboxing entirely whatever possible.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> There's not a perfect venue, but this is good enough for the current
> >> purpose: to discuss the /content/ of the JEP.  Actually discussing the
> >> /language feature/ proposed would come later, once the JEP is approved
> >> and funded.
> >>
> >> This is a /research JEP/, whose goal is to explore the design space and
> >> come up with a proposal.  But, this JEP is merely in the /Posted/ state,
> >> meaning it is in circulation for initial review and consensus building
> >> around the goal, which is to /explore/ the feature.  I'll take the
> >> vigorous discussion so far as evidence that there is interest in
> >> exploring the feature, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
> >>
> >> Details on the process here: http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1
> >>
> >> On 1/14/2014 10:49 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> >> > Question to Paul Sandoz: collection literals really have no
> connection to
> >> > lambda-dev, right? If that's the case, should all discussion move to
> >> > coin-dev or another list?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:34 PM, "Millies, Sebastian" <
> >> >> Sebastian.Millies at softwareag.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I would certainly expect it to be an immutable list, and I believe
> the
> >> >> proposal of having collection literals makes most sense in the
> context
> >> of
> >> >> persistent collections. This would be in keeping with evolving Java
> >> towards
> >> >> a more functional and parallel-friendly programming style, which
> entails
> >> >> embracing immutability. In contrast, what's to be gained from a
> shorter
> >> >> version of Arrays.asList() ?  -- Sebastian
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Note that Arrays.asList creates a List implementation that cannot be
> >> >> structurally modified; it cannot grow or shrink and is essentially a
> >> view
> >> >> over the array passed (directly or indirectly) to it. That is why one
> >> sees
> >> >> annoying code like:
> >> >>
> >> >>    new ArrayList<>(Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3, 4));
> >> >>
> >> >> or:
> >> >>
> >> >>    new ArrayList<Integer>() {{ add(1); add(2); add(3); }};
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> One reason why i pause for thought about immutability is List is not
> a
> >> >> particularly a good interface for an immutable list of elements.
> >> >>
> >> >> Paul.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>