Recap
This commit is contained in:
parent
9daf5ce8ef
commit
f6cb46af4a
@ -245,9 +245,15 @@ why do we need a lessdotCC constraint
|
||||
\dbox{Eine dashbox!}
|
||||
input is e.m(e);
|
||||
\begin{recap}\textbf{TI for FGJ without Wildcards:}
|
||||
The type inference algorithm for Featherweight Generic Java \cite{TIforFGJ} (called \TFGJ{}) is complete and sound.
|
||||
It is able to find a type solution for a Featherweight Generic Java program, which has no type annotations at all,
|
||||
if there is any.
|
||||
It's only restriction is that no polymorphic recursion is allowed.
|
||||
\TFGJ{} generates subtype constraints $(\type{T} \lessdot \type{T})$ consisting of named types and type placeholders.
|
||||
- usually the type of e must be subtypes of the method parameters
|
||||
- in case of a polymorphic method: type placeholders resemble type parameters
|
||||
\end{recap}
|
||||
Most
|
||||
involving wildcards:
|
||||
- depending on the type of e a capture conversion must be applied first
|
||||
- the captured type N must be a subtype of the method parameters
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user