surely we shouldn't have to give the same type parameters twice? The simplest proposal to relieve this redundancy allows
map := new HashMap
This introduces the new colon-equals token and the declaration-assignment statement. The variable appearing on the left-hand-side of the statement is implicitly defined by this statement, and its type is the type of the expression on the right-hand-side. I don't like this proposal. It both goes too far and not far enough.
It goes too far in that it allows the programmer to elide the type in a variable declaration. The type in a variable declaration is valuable documentation that helps the reader understand the program, and this proposal reduces the readability of programs by allowing it to be elided. Worse, it assigns the wrong type to the variable. Following Effective Java (first edition, item 34), the type of a declared variable should be an interface type. This statement form forces the variable to be of the (likely more specific) type of the right-hand-side. Consequently, the programmer may inadvertently depend on features of the concrete implementation class when using the variable. That would make it more difficult to modify the program later by selecting a different implementation type.
This syntax doesn't go far enough because the verbosity of creating generic classes is worth eliminating in other contexts as well. Programmers today work around the verbosity by providing static factory methods corresponding to constructors:
return new HashMap
This addresses the immediate problem:
Unfortunately, this idiom replaces one form of boilerplate (in variable initialization) with another: trivial static factories. A generic class is typically created more than once, so adding a single static factory can simplify the code at every creation site. But with language support, we can do better.
I propose a new form of class instance creation expression:
Using empty type parameters on a class instance creation expression asks the language/compiler to perform type inference, selecting appropriate type parameters exactly as it would in the invocation of the equivalent trivial static factory.
Type inference today works on the right-hand-side of an assignment. I also propose that we enable this new form to be used in more situations by improving type inference for expressions appearing in other contexts:
* the argument of a method call
* the receiver of a method call
* the argument of a constructor
* the argument of an alternate constructor invocation
This would enable generic methods to be invoked in these contexts without providing explicit type parameters.