Question on layer/peeling
Peter Levart
peter.levart at gmail.com
Tue Jan 6 08:21:01 UTC 2015
This could be a temporary library trick:
public class Default<any T> {
private T value;
private Default() {}
public static <any T> T value() {
return new Default<T>().value;
}
}
with use like:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int i = Default.value();
long l = Default.value();
Object o = Default.value();
}
}
...but unfortunately the above Test produces the following runtime
exception:
Specializing method util/Default$value${0=I}.value()Ljava/lang/Object;
with class=[] and method=[I]
Specializing util.Default${0=I}; searching for util/Default.class (not
found)
Specializing util.Default${0=I}; searching for util/Default.class (found)
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.BootstrapMethodError: call site
initialization exception
at java.lang.invoke.CallSite.makeSite(CallSite.java:341)
at
java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleNatives.linkCallSiteImpl(MethodHandleNatives.java:307)
at
java.lang.invoke.MethodHandleNatives.linkCallSite(MethodHandleNatives.java:297)
at util.Test.main(Test.java:8)
Caused by: java.lang.VerifyError: Bad type on operand stack
Exception Details:
Location:
util/Default$value${0=I}.value()I @7: getfield
Reason:
Type 'util/Default${0=I}' (current frame, stack[0]) is not
assignable to 'util/Default'
Current Frame:
bci: @7
flags: { }
locals: { }
stack: { 'util/Default${0=I}' }
Bytecode:
0000000: bb00 0959 b700 0db4 0012 ac
at sun.misc.Unsafe.defineAnonymousClass(Native Method)
at
java.lang.invoke.GenericMethodSpecializer.metafactory(GenericMethodSpecializer.java:98)
at java.lang.invoke.CallSite.makeSite(CallSite.java:302)
... 3 more
Seems like the specialization of static method is not entirely correct here.
Regards, Peter
On 01/06/2015 03:23 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> Yes, this is pretty straightforward. In the bucket of "things that
> are easy and small, so we'll ignore them until we solve the ones that
> are big and difficult.")
>
> The hardest part is picking a syntax (please, no suggestions!)
>
>
> On 1/5/2015 9:19 PM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>> C# has a default (T) keyword to allow generic code to obtain the "zero"
>> value for a type param. Something like that for java would be nice.
>>
>> Sent from my phone
>> On Jan 5, 2015 9:15 PM, "Michael Barker" <mikeb01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The SotS talks about the use of 'layer' to create an alternative
>>> implementation of methods when the type of an <any T> is known to be a
>>> reference type. However, the examples only show the use of the layer
>>> keyword on an interface definition, where as I've encountered at
>>> least one
>>> case where the internal implementation needs to differentiate between a
>>> reference-type and value-type based collection. The example I'm
>>> thinking
>>> about is the null-ing out of array elements in a collection (which is
>>> obviously a no-op with a value type, but necessity with reference
>>> types). Is an interface required in order to define a 'layer' or
>>> could it
>>> be done within a concrete class?
>>>
>>> E.g. is the following or something similar possible? If not, how
>>> would it
>>> be achieved with current spec?
>>>
>>> class ArrayList<any T> {
>>> T[] values;
>>> int position;
>>>
>>> void removeLast() {
>>> if (position <= 0) {
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> --position;
>>> clear(position);
>>> }
>>>
>>> private void clear(int index) {
>>> }
>>>
>>> layer<ref T> {
>>> private void clear(int index) {
>>> values[index] = null;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
More information about the valhalla-dev
mailing list