On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>
> But, now we a problem: we have existing code that erases arrays to
> `Object[]`, but after the flag day, such code will erase to Array instead.
Maybe, another way to address this, besides bridging distinct
descriptors, is to declare that the
On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> currently the result of the expression "new Object()" is a reference type, so
> it should be a RefObject, but we have created an Object not a RefObject,
> so it's at best weird.
I'd like to rationalize this in two steps.
First, allow `new
On 1/29/2019 1:55 PM, Karen Kinnear wrote:
Brian: Could flesh out Arrays 2.0 path a bit more so we see migration costs
with covariance, least cognitive dissonance
As promised
The motivation for all this is driven by the desire to compatibly
migrate existing generic libraries (JDK
- Mail original -
> De: "Karen Kinnear"
> À: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Mardi 29 Janvier 2019 19:55:17
> Objet: Valhalla EG notes Jan 16, 2019
> Attendees: Remi, Tobi, Dan H, John, Brian, Simms, Fred, Karen
> Corrections welcome - thank you John for your summary notes
>
> AIs:
>
Attendees: Remi, Tobi, Dan H, John, Brian, Simms, Fred, Karen
Corrections welcome - thank you John for your summary notes
AIs:
Remi - write up why if we retrofit arrays for Arrays 2.0 specializable
interface,
do we need covariance?
All: find examples where existing code assumes
