On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Al Chou wrote:
> Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:05:49 -0700 (PDT) > From: Al Chou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design > Concerns > > --- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anton Tagunov wrote: > > > 3) > > > > > > BTW, probably does the future introduction of Generics (Java 1.5) > > > promise any opportunities to work with primitive values and yet > > > have no code duplication (a bit like STL)? > > > > > > > I've not spent much time looking at Generics yet. I have allot to learn > > in this area. > > I believe for our purposes it suffices to describe generics as the ability to > write something like (I'm too lazy to look up the exact syntax): > > ArrayList<Double> myArray = new ArrayList()<Double> ; > Double d ; > int position = 0 ; > > myArray.add( new Double( 1.0 ) ) ; > > // Here's the part where generics make life easier. Look, Ma, no cast: > d = myArray.get( position ) ; > My understanding is that this is exactly what you'll get from the auto-unboxing capability. The compiler will be able to see that the right hand side returns a Double, and generate the code to unbox it into a double primitive for you. This is separate from Generics because it also works in other scenarios: Double d1 = new Double(1.0); // A lowly scalar instance of the wrapper double d2 = d1; // But no cast here either! d1 = d2 + 0.5; // Or here ... it is bidirectional > Al >From http://java.sun.com/javaone you can download a webcast of the Technical General Session on Tuesday morning that covered the 1.5 language changes, including both of the topics above. It was the first time I'd ever seen cheering sections for the different proposed features :-). Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
