On Apr 9, 2008, at 22:05, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-04-09, at 14:34, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Well, the problem is, if you're willing to risk that, you can
just do the job without generics -- just use a regular container
and cast when you take an object out of it, the way you used to
do
Marco Von Ballmoos writes:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 09:28, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
I would argue that more people would intuitively think that
IListB inherits from IListA if B inherits from A than that it
does not (and that generic methods are instead required).
I think that the only reasonable
On Apr 9, 2008, at 03:06, Michael Poole wrote:
I agree with the test of can I substitute Y objects whenever X
objects are used?, but I don't follow -- in your example -- under
which circumstances I would be unable to substitute IListB wherever
IListA is expected.
Suppose you receive an IListA
* Marco Von Ballmoos mvonbal...@gmail.com [2008-04-09 21:05]:
I would, however, be willing to accept the risk in exchange for
the increase in expressiveness.
Well, the problem is, if you're willing to risk that, you can
just do the job without generics -- just use a regular container
and cast
On 2008-04-09, at 14:34, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Well, the problem is, if you're willing to risk that, you can
just do the job without generics -- just use a regular container
and cast when you take an object out of it, the way you used to
do before generics were added.
But that means that
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:36:21PM +0200, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 09:28, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
I think that the only reasonable test for is Y a subclass of X?
is can I substitute Y objects whenever X objects are used?.
I agree with the test of can I substitute Y objects
On Apr 9, 2008, at 13:51, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:36:21PM +0200, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote:
Consider this:
a GothMusic is-a ModernMusic is-a Music
Music defines a few methods, including getmood() which throws an
exception if you haven't already setmood().
On Apr 5, 2008, at 23:25, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Marco Von Ballmoos mvonbal...@gmail.com [2008-04-05 00:10]:
C#'s generics are better, but still forbid covariance
Have to, to ensure type safety.
Have to is a bit strong. Willing to accept the restriction on
expressiveness in exchange
* Marco Von Ballmoos mvonbal...@gmail.com [2008-04-05 00:10]:
C#'s generics are better, but still forbid covariance
Have to, to ensure type safety.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Simon Wistow wrote:
because that doesn't make sense. So what you have to do is
Foo foo;
try {
foo = FooFactory.getFoo();
runBar(foo);
} catch (SomeCommonException e) {
System.err.println(Got an exception: +e);
} finally {
So Jav allows you to have anonymous inner classes. For example this is a
really easy (if ugly) way to run something asynchronously
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// do some stuff
}
}).start();
All well and good. But there is one down side.
On Apr 4, 2008, at 23:37, Simon Wistow wrote:
So Jav allows you to have anonymous inner classes.
You had me at Java language feature.
I mean. Seriously. What The Fuck?
All aboard for the Java bitch train! Woo-woo!
I you like Java's current approach to functional programming, can I
On 2008-04-04, at 16:59, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote:
http://earthli.com/news/view_article.php?id=1436
Is this all part of the generic hate created by the decision to avoid
late binding at all costs, or is there some other source of hate here?
On Apr 5, 2008, at 01:22, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-04-04, at 16:59, Marco Von Ballmoos wrote:
http://earthli.com/news/view_article.php?id=1436
Is this all part of the generic hate created by the decision to
avoid late binding at all costs, or is there some other source of
hate here?
14 matches
Mail list logo
