specializing generic methods

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 29/08/14 23:11, Dan Smith wrote:
> But, back to my first sentence: who cares?  If the bytecode says that test1 invokes 'm(double)double', then the specialized code_should not_  mimic test2.  It should continue to invoke 'm(double)double' instead.
More on this; while I understand where you are coming from, I think that 
such a behavior (specialization stuck with m(double)) would be 
surprising in a bad way. And perhaps, if we want to stick to our 
original design principle to make specialization as mechanic as 
possible, this means that there's a sweet spot in the design space of 
specialization where we can get around by means of simple 
type-substitution - that's probably where we need to ultimately land. 
Any step further and, as your example clearly shows, we are in a gray 
area where none of the alternatives look particularly compelling.

Maurizio