That’s right, as we think that will be the best default. Obviously in some cases users will want to re-bound to <T extends RefObject>.
(For existing code; this comes with compatibility concerns, which we can handle in various ways. The standard trick to change a bound without changing erasure is to bound at Object&X; this works when X is an interface but currently would be unhappy if X is a class. But this could be adjusted.) > On Apr 15, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore > <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Maybe (Remi correct me if I'm wrong), the problem Remi was referring to is > that we also have existing generic declarations like <T extends Object> > which, in the new world, will mean either VALUE or REFERENCE. I think this is > a consequence of the choice (1) I described in my email - e.g. reinterpret > Object in type position as TOP_TYPE. > > Maurizio > > On 15/04/2019 19:00, Brian Goetz wrote: >>> >>> It's not a minor change, and all code that uses a type parameter that have >>> Object as bound will become ambiguous. >> >> I don’t think so. You can’t say >> >> new T() >> >> when T is bounded at Object (or anything, for that matter.). >> >> What ambiguity are you afraid of here? >> >>
