Quirk with generics

[Arne Vajhøj]

But it is not graven in stone, either, and indeed I hear they're open
sourcing it starting with version seven.

SUN are open sourcing their implementation.

It does not really have any impact on what is Java now or
in the future. That is handled by the JCP project.

Other open source Java implementations exist of varying
quality.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

This newsgroup shows up in my newsreader as "unmod". That means we are
all equals here. Which in turn means that you, in particular, do not get
to impose standards on the rest of us.

The only place that might legitimately specify such a standard that
"holds weight" would be the newsgroup FAQ/charter. It does not seem to
have a regularly-reposted FAQ and the charter says it's for discussion
of Java programming, and little else.

We can definitely not force you to create SSCCE's for your problems.

But we can tell you that we will not take you seriously unless you
create SSCCE's for your problems.

In particular, I dislike the sleazily-made implication that I am lazy.

But you openly stated that:

#You're joking. That would have required:
#* Creating a new project in my IDE.
#* Configuring this.
#* Creating a new Java package within the project.
#* Creating four new source files within the package.
#* All of the copying, pasting, and editing noted above.
#* A second round of copying, pasting, and editing (to remove auto-added
# top-of-file comments).
#* Deleting the project, its package, and the four source files.
#That could easily take half an hour or more, and requires messing with
#my IDE potentially disturbing the way I'd had it (current
#project/recent files, etc.).

That is being lazy !

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Who is Paul?
You.

My name is Kevin,

Impossible that two people exist with such silly behavior.

You are Paul.

Arne

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Who is Paul?

You.

Impossible that two people exist with [insult deleted]

As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied are
true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.

You are Paul.

He says his name is Kevin. Are you calling him a liar?

 

[Roedy Green]

Oh, shut up, Roedy. I was pointing out additional places people could go to
research these things, lest people be put off by *your* implication that one
needs to be a language lawyer to understand things. It is my intention to
make it easier for people by letting them know that things are simpler than
*you* implied.

So get that bug out of your .

I am going to keep bugging you until you stop it.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
PM Steven Harper is fixated on the costs of implementing Kyoto, estimated as high as 1% of GDP.
However, he refuses to consider the costs of not implementing Kyoto which the
famous economist Nicholas Stern estimated at 5 to 20% of GDP

 

[Roedy Green]

Oh, shut up, Roedy.

I won't and this is why. I see one of my life purposes is to spread
knowledge of computers to the third world, particularly Java. You are
doing the opposite, trying to scare the newbies off.

Your motive is petty, an ego rush putting others down who can't fight
back. You are a bully at heart. So I feel guilt-free giving you a
rough time to discourage the practice.

--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
PM Steven Harper is fixated on the costs of implementing Kyoto, estimated as high as 1% of GDP.
However, he refuses to consider the costs of not implementing Kyoto which the
famous economist Nicholas Stern estimated at 5 to 20% of GDP

 

[secret decoder ring]

Then you got exactly what you expected: you were told
that your code has syntax errors.

Unless people spend time trying to guess what the crap
you posted

I did not post "crap". Stop flaming me. You are quite a rude and
unpleasant character. So is Harold Curly Phillips. Are you bedmates?

It has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do need help
understanding how generics work in Java.

No, I do not.

It has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do need help
understanding how manners, politeness, and basic human decency work in
society.

The concept of formal proof of correctness has no relevance for that.

It was another example of an in-practice-unattainable ideal.

Your apparent inability to understand reasoning that uses examples or
analogies is not my problem.

And besides you are wrong.

No, I am not.

It is the expectation.

It is your expectation. Obviously not everyone agrees with you that it
is "the" expectation. I, for one, do not.

You may make 1 guess about what the last C stands for.

No thanks. I'm honestly not interested. Indeed, I'm not interested in
much of anything that you have to say at this point.

 

[secret decoder ring]

We can definitely not force you to create SSCCE's for your problems.

I'm glad you realize that now.

But we can tell you that we will not take you seriously unless you
create SSCCE's for your problems.

It has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do not intend to
take me seriously no matter what I do, so that's no great loss.

Even when I provide citations and evidence to support my claims, you and
everyone else in your circle-jerk treat it as if it were wrong or an
outright lie. One place this has happened was when I said a Java class
cannot have two methods with the same signature and different return
types, Joshua Somebody accused me of being wrong, and I quoted chapter
and verse from the JLS proving that Joshua was the wrong one. He
continued to argue! Another was when I pointed out a message on a Web
site and a message displayed by some software that clearly and
explicitly contradicted one another, and demonstrated that the message
on the Web site was correct, thereby logically proving that the message
displayed by the software was not correct. People continued to argue
with me and claim that the software's message was correct!

Reason is clearly wasted on you.

So you'll pardon me if I don't consider "we will not take you seriously"
to be very much of a threat under the circumstances.

But you openly stated that

I did not. I openly disputed it and I continue to dispute it.

#You're joking. That would have required:
#* Creating a new project in my IDE.
#* Configuring this.
#* Creating a new Java package within the project.
#* Creating four new source files within the package.
#* All of the copying, pasting, and editing noted above.
#* A second round of copying, pasting, and editing (to remove auto-added
# top-of-file comments).
#* Deleting the project, its package, and the four source files.
#That could easily take half an hour or more, and requires messing with
#my IDE potentially disturbing the way I'd had it (current
#project/recent files, etc.).

That is being lazy !

No. It is called time management, and setting priorities.

But it has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do need help
understanding how time management and setting priorities works. You have
spent an inordinate amount of time bashing me and being generally rude
and uncouth, time that you could surely have spent more productively.

 

[secret decoder ring]

You.

No, I'm Kevin. Kevin Anderson.

You are clearly a delusional psychotic. Please go away.

Impossible that two people exist with such silly behavior.

Nothing about my behavior is silly. You, on the other hand, are a
difficult person to take seriously. You post here to insult people
rather than help them, what you do have to say about Java comes out in
fractured English like a school-child's, and when someone objects to
your rudeness, you do silly things in your replies like intentionally
altering the quoted material to make it look like they said something
different, or objected to something else than what they really objected
to, and you seem to think that nobody here is smart enough to do a
Google Groups lookup to see what the person really did object to. A
Google search that proves you to be a fool, and moreover, one who will
stoop to clearly dishonest tactics in his efforts to insult and belittle
others when those others refuse to behave as you apparently wish them to.

You're a joke, Arne, and your calling *my* behavior silly after the
stuff you've tried to pull is the punch line.

Since I'm not laughing, I must conclude that you're a *bad* joke, poorly
delivered and in poor taste.

 

[secret decoder ring]

Sure. Which was wrong.

No. Your dishonest editing of the quoted material to make it look like I
was saying something different in my previous post from what I really
said -- THAT is wrong.

Try google for SSCCE.

Try learn some manners.

Ask politely and I might actually feel inclined to do something you request.

Ask like that and you won't get anything from me but a nice close-up of
my erect middle finger.

It is obviously true.

Yes -- it is quite obvious that you're an asshole. And unless I miss my
guess a well-traveled one, too.

 

[secret decoder ring]

SUN are open sourcing their implementation.

Yes, that is what I said.

 

[secret decoder ring]

So our hypothetical two distinct method(Foo)s have the same name and
argument types -- name "method", one argument, that argument's type
Foo. That means they have the same signature. That, in turn, means
that each signature is a subsignature of the other. EITHER of those is
enough to make the two methods override-equivalent. And it is
therefore a compile-time error to declare both distinct method(Foo)s
in a single class.

Let me state my claims in bulleted form. Please indicate which specific
claim you disagree with:

1. We are trying to resolve which method |b1.method(b2)| will call.
2. There are two possible choices for |b1.method(b2)| generated by the
lookup phase:
2a. Foo::method(T) [1]
2b. Bar::method(S) [1]

You are completely missing the point. The javac compiler can, in
principle, safely assume that the run-time type of the object will be an
implementation of both interfaces that compiles. It follows that it will
have a single method Bar method (Foo) that is its implementation of both
the interface methods noted. It follows that the call is not really
ambiguous -- calling either of the interface method will wind up
invoking the same method in the implementation, no matter what that
implementation ends up being, so the compiler may as well "just pick
one" and the results will be as intended by the coder, well-defined and
unambiguous.

If your argument is that the above hypothetical behavior is not the
behavior of current javac, nor the behavior specified in the JLS, then
we have no quarrel. I was suggesting that this might be changed, not
that this was not the present behavior.

If your argument is that the above hypothetical behavior is somehow
physically impossible, or would create unpredictable behavior, I have
logically proven that that is not so.

I think we're done here.

 

[John W Kennedy]

Yes, that is what I said.

No it isn't. You said that Sun was open-sourcing the language.


--
John W. Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.
The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being
corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton

 

[secret decoder ring]

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

My point being that the present behavior of the javac compiler is not
graven in stone.

If you are not disputing that point, then there is nothing further for
you to do here that is at all worthwhile.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

I am going to keep bugging you until you stop it.

Go, Roedy, go! (But don't be surprised if they start thinking you're
Paul, especially since you are in Canada!)