Signature of MethodHandleInfo.reflectAs is not specific enough (original) (raw)

Ali Ebrahimi ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 1 10:17:52 UTC 2014

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:16 AM, John Rose <john.r.rose at oracle.com> wrote:

On Feb 25, 2014, at 3:13 AM, Ali Ebrahimi <ali.ebrahimi1781 at gmail.com> wrote:

I know, this is too late, but I want to share my suggestion: public <T extends AccessibleObject&AnnotatedElement> T reflectAs(Class<?_ _super T> expected, MethodHandles.Lookup lookup)

Isn't this the same as public T reflectAs... Oh, sorry, this is my bad. I mean this:

public <T extends AccessibleObject&Member> T reflectAs(Class<? super T> expected, MethodHandles.Lookup lookup)

I think we considered AccessibleObject but rejected it as not buying anything significant compared with Member which is an interface. Perhaps public <T extends Member & AnnotatedElement> T reflectAs... I considered this case, but unfortunately compiler accepts following test case with this signature: String ss = reflectAs(String.class, MethodHandles.lookup()); //OK!!!!!!! This seams as compiler bug, any way with <T extends AccessibleObject&Member> compiler catches error.

Finally, one case that compiler accepts with both signature is:

Object mo = reflectAs(Object.class, MethodHandles.lookup());

Maybe I'm wrong for this, Dan Smith can better interpret this. T inferred to Object and T is not within its bound (AccessibleObject&Member).

Regards, Ali Ebrahimi

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list