On Jan 14, 3:28 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote:
> com.package.ContainingClass.foobar(Ljava/util/List;V) > com.package.ContainingClass.foobar(Ljava/util/List;I) > > which is not okay - being only different in return type is not > allowed. This isn't a big concern and is not generally covered by what > is meant with 'we should reify generics', but its important to know > that this can pretty much never be fixed without serious overhauling > of the JVM. Adding generic type information to method calls and using that together with the generic type information already present on methods in the class file doesn't seem a great stretch to me. The question is what sort of bangs-per-buck are you getting. The bucks are small, bit the bangs are barely a fizzle, IMO. But I think thats a general problem with reification. > what can actually be recovered by the JVM at runtime is this: > > List<String> foo = new ArrayList(); It gets more paradoxical with the like of Collections.emptySet Tom --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
