Re: light weight types
Steven Simpson wrote:
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Steven Simpson wrote:
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Would it have taken much time? Couldn't one do something like:
public interface Map extends GMap<Object,Object>()
public class HashMap extends GHashMap<Object,Object>()
If you could, wouldn't it alternatively be possible to get the compiler
to regard an unadorned Map as Map<Object,Object>, rather than warning
about it?
I assume that alternative was considered, and rejected.
I was implicitly suggesting that some of the reasons for rejecting "Map
is short for Map<Object,Object>" would apply to "Map extends GMap" just
as well.
Could you give an example of a such a reason? Note that the reason I
listed definitely does not apply to "Map extends GMap<Object,Object>".
If they had kept
the non-generic interfaces and provided new ones for generics, it would
have been a good choice. Generally, when I change one of my classes to
use generics, I intend to make the corresponding changes in all uses,
and want to be warned of any failure to do so.
Are you saying that relying on "Map extends GMap" would have warned you
any better than "Map is short for Map<Object,Object>"?
Yes, because I could have left the warning for non-generic use of a
generic type enabled. As it was, I had to suppress that warning until I
had the time and understanding of generics to change all my previously
correct uses of the newly generic java.util types, including Map.
Patricia