Re: Precise types & retyping

> So yes, if you want to assert that the parameter of such method
> cannot be null, or that the return type might be null (which will
> enable the Nice compiler to make sure that you use them properly),
> then you need a retyping. Or the "massive retypings" that I was
> speaking about.

So, given that I wish to take advantage of the distinction between
option types and non-null types, is it correct that the only methods I
wouldn't retype are ones whose parameters are all primitive (or option
type) and whose return type is void or a primitive type?

I would retype any method that had a non-null parameter or a non-null
return type, yes?


> Ha, I see. Yes, I guess you could write a utility that prints
> retyping templates for all methods in your library, and then you
> manually adjust them as needed.
> 
> Alternatively, it might be more efficient to use the retyping policy 
> statements, and then go through the API docs, and only list those 
> methods that need it.

Until the retyping policy statements are available, generating
templates seems the practical approach.

 
> What library are you working on? 

Yes I started looking at SWT (doing the obvious thing of adding Adapter
classes to make the listeners usable in a straightforward way). The
idea of retyping the SWT packages by hand isn't appealing.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click