On 04/11/15 11:19, Timo Kinnunen wrote:
Hi,
I tested your version of the wildcard counter and it appears to be incompatible
with one possible signature of the StackWalker.walk method.
Here’s my code. Please see the line with ERROR comment:
static class StackWalker {
static class StackFrame implements CharSequence {
// ...
}
<T> T walk(Function<? super Stream<StackFrame>, ? extends T>
function, IntUnaryOperator sizing) {
return function.apply(Stream.of("one " + sizing.applyAsInt(1),
"two" + sizing.applyAsInt(2)).map(StackFrame::new));
}
<T> T powerWalk(Function<Stream<StackFrame>, T> function,
IntUnaryOperator sizing) {
return function.apply(Stream.of("one " + sizing.applyAsInt(1),
"two" + sizing.applyAsInt(2)).map(StackFrame::new));
}
}
static Function<Stream<?>, Long> wildCounter() {
return Stream::count;
}
static <T> Function<Stream<T>, Long> tameCounter() {
return Stream::count;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Function<Stream<StackWalker.StackFrame>, Long> tameCounter =
tameCounter();
Function<Stream<?>, Long> wildCounter = wildCounter();
Long counted1 = new StackWalker().walk(tameCounter, i -> i);
Long counted2 = new StackWalker().walk(wildCounter, i -> i);
Long counted3 = new StackWalker().powerWalk(tameCounter, i ->
i);
Long counted4 = new StackWalker().powerWalk(wildCounter, i ->
i); // ERROR
System.out.println(counted1 + counted2 + counted3 + counted4);
}
This may be a problem with javac, but it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in
me towards wildcards. More like it’s another example in a long-running pattern
of bad behavior. The version by Paul Sandoz compiles without issues, no
surprises there as usual.
And this is what javac is telling me:
Information:Using javac 1.8.0_65 to compile java sources
Error:(77, 50) java: method powerWalk in class nonnulls.GenericTest.StackWalker
cannot be applied to given types;
required:
java.util.function.Function<java.util.stream.Stream<nonnulls.GenericTest.StackWalker.StackFrame>,T>,java.util.function.IntUnaryOperator
found:
java.util.function.Function<java.util.stream.Stream<?>,java.lang.Long>,(i)->i
reason: cannot infer type-variable(s) T
(argument mismatch;
java.util.function.Function<java.util.stream.Stream<?>,java.lang.Long> cannot be converted
to
java.util.function.Function<java.util.stream.Stream<nonnulls.GenericTest.StackWalker.StackFrame>,T>)
Right - you are passing a Function<Stream<?>, Long> where a
Function<Stream<StackFrame>, T> is expected - regardless of what happens
to the inference variable T, for this to be valid, it must be that
Stream<?> == Stream<StackFrame>, which is obviously not the case.
There's no doubt that '? super' is needed in the argument position for
Function - as to the '? extends' in the return type I think it's
irrelevant - i.e. this:
<T> T powerWalk(Function<? super Stream<StackFrame>, T> function,
IntUnaryOperator sizing) {
and
<T> T powerWalk(Function<? super Stream<StackFrame>, ? extends T> function,
IntUnaryOperator sizing) {
Should result in having same applicability.
Maurizio
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Remi Forax
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 10:04
To: Paul Sandoz
Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: Proposed API for JEP 259: Stack-Walking API
Hi Paul,
The use of BaseStream was just an example, here is another one that works only if the
function first parameter type is declared as '? super
Stream<StackWalker.StackFrame>'.
static Function<Stream<?>, Integer> counter() {
return stream::count;
}
...
StackWalker walker = ...
int count = walker.walk(counter());
regards,
Rémi
----- Mail original -----
De: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.san...@oracle.com>
Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Envoyé: Lundi 2 Novembre 2015 13:44:24
Objet: Re: Proposed API for JEP 259: Stack-Walking API
I agree with Maurizio, the first signature is good enough.
One could argue that it might be better to apply PECS since it would
encourage more consistent usage when it is actually required as all too
often it’s easy to forget, and then too late to change. However, i don’t
want to encourage the use of BaseStream since it was an unfortunate mistake
that this made public.
Paul.
On 2 Nov 2015, at 13:26, Maurizio Cimadamore
<maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> wrote:
So, we have three potential signatures here:
<T> T walk(Function<Stream<StackWalker.StackFrame>, T> function) //1
<T> T walk(Function<Stream<StackWalker.StackFrame>, ? extends T> function)
//2
<R extends T, T> T walk(Function<Stream<StackWalker.StackFrame>, R>
function) //3
Under normal conditions (i.e. lambda parameter being passed to 'walk') I
think all these signatures are fundamentally equivalent; (2) and (3) seem
to have been designed for something like this:
Number n = walk(s -> new Integer(1));
That is, the function returns something that is more specific w.r.t. what
is expected in the return type of walk. But - in reality, if 'walk'
returns an R that is a subtype of T (as in the third signature), then walk
also returns a T (as R is a subtype of T), so the result value can be
passed where a T is expected.
The converse example:
Integer n1 = walk(s -> (Number)null);
Similarly fails on all three signatures.
More generally, with all such signatures, T will always receive:
* lower bound(s) (from the return value(s) of the lambda passed as a
parameter to the 'walk' method)
* one upper bound (from the target-type associated with the 'walk' call.
Under such conditions, the upper bound will always be disregarded in favor
of the lower bounds - meaning that instantiation of T will always be
driven by what's inside the lambda. Signature (3) mentions different
variables (R and T) but the end result is the same - as the bound says R
extends T - meaning that lower bounds of R are propagated to T - leading
to exactly the same situation.
In other words, I don't think there are obvious examples in which the
behavior of these three signatures will be significantly different - if
the return type of 'walk' would have been a generic type such as List<T>,
the situation would have been completely different - with with a 'naked'
T, I think the first signature is good enough, and the third is, in my
opinion, making things harder than what they need to be.
I think the second signature is not necessary, from a pure type-system
perspective; but I guess one could make an argument for it, but purely in
terms of consistency with other areas (after all, the second
type-parameter of a Function is in a covariant position).
I hope this helps.
Maurizio
