On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Neal Gafter <[email protected]> wrote: > Charles- > > This makes a lot of sense. My concern is that such a change may break an > unknown number of other, different examples. > > Rather than trying to construct an overload resolution algorithm that makes > this example work as expected, I think the right solution would be to > characterize what javac used to do. If that characterization is as > straightforward as the current specification, then the spec (rather than the > compiler) ought to be adjusted.
That will require someone familiar with how javac used to be broken. I know only what I observe from the outside. > However, unless someone at Oracle does this quite soon, I fear it is a lost > cause, as SE 7 is about to be unleashed. Yeah, as I said previously I've fixed the handful of cases in JRuby already, so my heart's not in a fight. I believe we're in the right in wanting the original behavior to remain *and* be according to spec, but this change may have happened too late in the game. Even if I had noticed it right away, we'd have had maybe an extra month to deal with it. Love those last-minute changes, don'tcha? FWIW, I will repost my last analysis to compiler-dev, and maybe magic will happen. - Charlie -- 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.
