Skip to main content

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

  • From: Werner Keil < >
  • To: " " < >
  • Subject: Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship
  • Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:19:52 +0100

The most important argument on the ME side is space.
declaring dozens or hundreds of concrete classes (even if they got
significant math from a base class like current BaseQuantity) is a
nightmare there.

People would likely end up with "Wildcard" types given the current approach
of Quantity<?> for unknown types would no longer exist
(the only one who'd be extremely happy might be Otavio[?]) so instead of
Quantity<?> developers in their pain and need to save space would declare
something like AnyType implements Any (sort of like Scala does btw. in its
own typesystem[?])

Werner

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
 wrote:

> Le 02/11/14 01:06, Werner Keil a écrit :
> > You have to ask Antoine, a Spec Lead of CDI 2 who made the change.
> > (he's actually in Paris most of the time;-)
> I'm in Japan right now (so I should already be sleeping). But anyway, he
> may have good reason for CDI, but that doesn't means that those reasons
> apply to us too. For now Proxy is a technical solution that works - with
> performance cost, but we can mitigate it with concrete classes for some
> types. It could happen that analysis of the technical arguments against
> Proxy shows that the inconvenient are important enough for disqualifying
> Proxy technology on JavaSE. But we can not said that without seeing the
> arguments.
>
>     Martin
>
>

Attachment: 329.gif
Description: GIF image

Attachment: 347.gif
Description: GIF image



Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

(continued)

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Jean-Marie Dautelle 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Jean-Marie Dautelle 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Jean-Marie Dautelle 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close