On 06/09/2011 10:20 PM, Neal Gafter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Attila Szegedi <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 can, just consider int and Integer has the same node:
int <= Integer && int >= Integer because int == Integer
Rémi
--
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.
