Hi Rémi, On 25/06/2020 00:32, Remi Forax wrote:
I get that you want to keep Consumer<R> instead of Consumer<? super R> because Consumer<? super R> is not a valid target type for a lambda, but the BiConsumer should be able to take a ? super Consumer<R> instead of just Consumer<R>.
Though I don't dispute that a strict application of the rules of covariance and contravariance would require to design a signature that accepts a `? super Consumer<R>` - how would you implement a BiConsumer with a signature that doesn't take a Consumer<R>? Such an implementation would be unable to push anything downstream without having to cast back the consumer to Consumer<R>. My personal preference would be to vote in favor of the simpler signature - which IMO is more readable and easier to understand. best regards, -- daniel
