----- Mail original ----- > De: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> > À: "Remi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Samedi 8 Décembre 2018 00:57:58 > Objet: Re: enhanced enums - back from the dead?
[...] >> >> It's not that i don't like the feature, it's that for me it's a feature you >> can >> not even put in the box of the features that we could do. We start with "hey >> we >> could do this !" but there are some typing issues. Now, what your are saying >> is >> that we can use raw types to not have the typing issues, but as i said above, >> you are trading an error to a bunch of warnings, doesn't seems to be a good >> deal*. > > I agree that having too many warnings is bad - in my experiment, > although I touched a lot of code, including stream chains, I did not > find them; Comparator.comparing is probably one of the worst beast (and > doesn't work well with target typing even beside generic enums). Not > sure if that shifts the balance one way or another, but point taken. > > On this topic, since I was there, I tried to tweak the prototype so that > Enum.values() and Enum.valueOf() return wildcards Foo<?>, but supertype > is Enum<Foo> and this seem to work surprisingly well, both in the tests > I had and in the new one you suggest. Maybe that would minimize the raw > type usage, pushing it quite behind the curtains, and strictly as a > migration aid for APIs such as EnumSet/Map ? Using Enum<Foo<?>> should also work ? no ? > > Maurizio > Rémi
