PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals (original) (raw)
Kevin Bourrillion kevinb at google.com
Wed Mar 11 08:55:09 PDT 2009
- Previous message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Next message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org> wrote:
- Constructor literals have to be included. If you don't then developers will find it an unexplained gap. See FCM section 2.2 which uses Type#(argTypes)
Yes, and the worst case scenario is to mimic the Javadoc syntax: ArrayList#ArrayList(int).
- I would use Field/Method/Constructor, as a key goal is to enable integration with existing frameworks.
Absolutely positively.
- I believe that adding generics to Field and Method (the return type) is a key part of this change.
Is it possible to keep that API change and this language change orthogonal?
-- Kevin Bourrillion @ Google internal: http://go/javalibraries google-collections.googlecode.com google-guice.googlecode.com
- Previous message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Next message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]