[concurrency-interest] Concurrency-interest Digest, Vol 37, Issue 7

Neal Gafter neal at gafter.com
Thu Feb 7 16:55:13 EST 2008


On Feb 7, 2008 11:23 AM, Joshua Bloch <josh at bloch.us> wrote:

> Is it necessary to specialize on byte vs short vs int vs long parameters;
> > seems like
> > implicit widening to int or long should suffice and you can eliminate a
> > lot of combinations.
> > It seems sufficient for jsr166y.forkjoin.
> >
> Yes.  That's the sort of compromise that seems reasonable on the face of
> it.
>

Yes, if you don't mind forcing implementations of these interfaces to write
an (unsafe) narrowing primitive cast to reflect the semantics of the problem
when the natural argument type is byte or short.  It seems like this is the
wrong context in which to make a decision about effectively deprecating some
of the primitive types.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20080207/5924ef52/attachment.html 


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list