On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 07:22:15 GMT, Per Minborg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> @minborg `EmptyList` already implements it, as any other `List`:
>>
>> public interface List<E> extends SequencedCollection<E> { ... }
>>
>>
>> For `EmptyMap` (and even `SingletonMap` and `SingletonSet`), it's possible,
>> but it will require changing the public interface (`Collections::emptyMap`
>> will have to return `SequencedMap`), which may produce binary compatibility
>> issues. Probably we can invent a binary-compatible signature like this:
>>
>>
>> public static final <K,V,M extends Map<K, V> & SequencedMap<K, V>> M
>> emptyMap() { ... }
>>
>> But it looks ugly.
>
> @amaembo `SequencedMap` already implements `Map`. :-) So, we could say:
>
>
> public static final <K,V> SequencedMap<K, V> emptyMap() { ... }
>
>
> An empty map could also "incidentally" implement `SequencedMap`.
@minborg as JLS 13.4.15 says,
> Changing the result type of a method, or replacing a result type with void,
> or replacing void with a result type, has the combined effect of deleting the
> old method and adding a new method with the new result type or newly void
> result
Changing the result type from `Map` to `SequencedMap` will modify the binary
signature, so compiled classes that used this method previously will fail with
`NoSuchMethodError`. That's why simply changing `Map` to `SequencedMap` is not
quite possible. My trick with `M extends Map<K, V> & SequencedMap<K, V>`
employs the fact that the type parameter gets erased to its first bound, which
is `Map`, so such kind of return type replacement is safe (but ugly).
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27406#issuecomment-3317469167
