On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Attila Szegedi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The question however is whether these solutions we perceive as intuitive >> can indeed be formally valid under some set of consistent rules, without >> running into a contradiction. >> > > In answer to you and Neal, it seems there's a simple way to improve the > spec to provide the "intuitive" result (or at least the result most people > here seem to find intuitive: treat primitives as more specific than Object > (and potentially over boxed numeric types as well). My (mis)interpretation > of the Java spec for Mirah's compiler works this way currently; primitives > are given priority over reference types unconditionally, since the > alternative *requires* a boxing conversion. If you have to walk through a > conversion to get there, you're walking into a less-specific signature. > The "old" javac algorithm treated boxing and unboxing conversions symmetrically. But you cannot have both int more specific than Integer and vice versa. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
