Type equality for values

[Brian Goetz]

They have no shared top type. Int is convertible to long, not a subtype.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 1, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't that idea that "mutually castable types" suggest that int and long
> should work, though -- in the sense that they can still be cast from one to
> the other, even if this casting isn't because of a shared top type?
> 
> -- Alexander Meiburg
> 
> 
> 2014-08-01 13:54 GMT-07:00 Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>:
> 
>> If the thing being compared is a value, I think we want “must”; if the
>> things being compared are refs, then “may”.
>> 
>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Paul Govereau <paul.govereau at oracle.com>
>> 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
>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>>