Difference between revisions of "Talk:Catcall Test Proposal"
Colin-adams (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
What is supposed to happen in the multiple constraint case (if the compiler didn't have a limitation)? | What is supposed to happen in the multiple constraint case (if the compiler didn't have a limitation)? | ||
--[[User:Colin-adams|Colin-adams]] 00:09, 6 November 2007 (PST) | --[[User:Colin-adams|Colin-adams]] 00:09, 6 November 2007 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : The 'variant' keyword is nearly the same as the wildcard types introduced in Java. The only difference is the use of a global analysis (i.e. non-modular) to check certain corner cases that are valid although generics are used in the arguments. | ||
Revision as of 03:26, 6 November 2007
Can you give an example of when using the variant keyword makes sense?
As for the frozen keyword, doesn't this break the open/closed principle yet again (I know the example shows an attribute, but the wording suggests a routine could also be marked with a frozen type - does this limit redeclaration)?
What is supposed to happen in the multiple constraint case (if the compiler didn't have a limitation)? --Colin-adams 00:09, 6 November 2007 (PST)
- The 'variant' keyword is nearly the same as the wildcard types introduced in Java. The only difference is the use of a global analysis (i.e. non-modular) to check certain corner cases that are valid although generics are used in the arguments.
