Type equality for values

[Remi Forax]

On 08/01/2014 09:05 PM, Paul Govereau wrote:
> 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

Maurizio said that currently javac checks that T=U may be true,
but as Brian said, javac should check that T=U must be true.

Rémi

>
> 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
>>>
>>