[weld-dev] Use of "to" and "from" when refering to assignments in section 5.2.3

[Eric Covener]

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> In your example, the raw types of both the producer and consumer are both identical, so, like you say, we need to consider the type parameters.
>
> * the type of the producer is resolved to have a single type parameter, which is a type variable with upper bound MediumClass.
> * the required type for s1 has a single type parameter, which is an actual type SmallClass
> * the required type b1 has a single type parameter, which is an actual type BigClass
> * BigClass is assignable to MediumClass
> * SmallClass is NOT assignable to MediumClass
>
> Therefore, like you say, for s1:
>
> * The REQUIRED type parameter is an ACTUAL TYPE (yes, it's SmallClass)
> * the BEAN type parameter is a TYPE VARIABLE (yes, it has upper bound MediumClass)
> * and the ACTUAL TYPE is ASSIGNABLE TO the upper bound, if any, of the TYPE VARIABLE (no, SmallClass is not assignable to MediumClass)
>
> and for b1:
>
> * The REQUIRED type parameter is an ACTUAL TYPE (yes, it's BigClass)
> * the BEAN type parameter is a TYPE VARIABLE (yes, it has upper bound MediumClass)
> * and the ACTUAL TYPE is ASSIGNABLE TO the upper bound, if any, of the TYPE VARIABLE (yes, BigClass is assignable to MediumClass)
>
> And yes, looking at this, it does seem the wrong way around.
>
> Gavin, your thoughts?
>

Did this thread/issue go anywhere off-line?

-- 
Eric Covener
covener at gmail.com