[concurrency-interest] jsr166y.forkjoin API comments
mthornton at optrak.co.uk
Fri Jan 25 17:30:09 EST 2008
Neal Gafter wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 12:58 PM, Mark Thornton <mthornton at optrak.co.uk
> <mailto:mthornton at optrak.co.uk>> wrote:
> During the first public review of JSR 14 (Generics) I proposed an
> extension that would have supported primitives. ... I think the
> I proposed then would still be technically feasible today (absent
> curious interactions with auto-boxing)...
> I've never heard a proposal that I thought was technically feasible
> from a language perspective, other than the obvious
> performance-problematic scheme of boxing on the way in and unboxing on
> the way out. Do you have a writeup of your proposed subtyping rules?
I'll see what I can dredge up from the archives when I'm at work. It
never progressed very far as the primary reason for rejection wasn't
technical. Essentially though a type argument was either a regular one
(as now) or constrained to be a numeric primitive. A type argument
couldn't be replaced by both object types and primitives. Then instead
of having Collections.sort methods for Object and every numeric
primitive, just two methods are required, one for Objects (as now) and
the other for all the numeric primitives.
More information about the Concurrency-interest