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

[Pete Muir]

I don't think so.

On 1 Nov 2010, at 17:24, Eric Covener wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> weld-dev mailing list
> weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev