Re: Re: polynomial ring

>><Ring R, RR, T | R<RR> <: T <: R<RR>>
>>class Polynomial<T> implements Ring {
>>    T[] e;
>>    
>>
>This is fun! 
>
>Please step through more slowly:
>- we can't have 'Ring[] e' because Ring is not a type
>  
>
Right.

>- we've said there's some type T; 
>  
>
Right, and that this is the type parameter of the class we are 
declaring, Polynomial.

>- and that type T is a subtype of some other type R that implements the
>abstract interface Ring
>  
>
That T is equal (subtype and supertype) to R<RR>, where R is any class 
that implements Ring, and RR is any type.

>>Apparently, a future version of the type-checker could internally do
>>something similar to handle these cases, and you would not even
>>notice :-)
>>    
>>
>
>In some future version of the type-checker, what sort of thing would we
>write for this to be done internally?
>  
>
abstract interface Ring { ... }

class Polynomial<T> implements Ring { ... }

Daniel



-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn