Type equality for values

[Paul Govereau]

Sorry, I am a little confused. I sounds like Brian is saying that
T=U _must_ be true, and Maurizio is saying we only need that
T=U _may_ be true?

Is this a case where value- and reference-types differ?

Paul

On 08/01/2014 02:27 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>
> On 01/08/14 11:23, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>> Right - I would expect that to already be working (modulo the fact
>> that I have not really tested integration of 'any' with value types
>> that much - yet).
> Let me backtrack a bit - currently the spec (15.21.3) demands that the
> equality should be accepted if one type is castable to the other. I
> believe in all the examples I've seen so far, that's the case, as there
> is always a chance that the type-variable will be instantiated with the
> same type, so the cast must be allowed.
>
> Maurizio
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>> On 01/08/14 11:07, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>> Certainly if we cannot prove T=U then I think this equality
>>> comparison makes no sense.  But if we have
>>>
>>>    <any T> boolean foo(A<T> a, A<T> b) { return a==b; }
>>>
>>> this does make sense (assuming we are comparing values for state
>>> equality via ==).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Paul Govereau <paul.govereau at oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following code is valid for reference types:
>>>>
>>>> class A<T> {
>>>>     int x = 0;
>>>>
>>>>     <T,U> boolean foo(A<T> a, A<U> b) {
>>>>         return (a == b);
>>>>     }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> However, I don't think this makes sense for value types. In the case
>>>> of reference types, the "top" is a realizable type, namely Object;
>>>> but, for values the "top" is not realizable?
>>>>
>>>> final __ByValue class A<T> {
>>>>     final int x = 0;
>>>>
>>>>     <any T, any U> boolean foo(A<T> a, A<U> b) {
>>>>         return (a == b);  // <<--- type error ??
>>>>     }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Should this be a type error?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>
>