Reputation: 525
Consider the following article in JLS:9 (18.5.2.2. Additional Argument Constraints)
Let θ be the substitution [P1:=α1, ..., Pp:=αp] defined in §18.5.1 to replace the type parameters of m with inference variables. Then, for all i (1 ≤ i ≤ k): If ei is not pertinent to applicability, C contains ‹ei → Fi θ›.
Clearly - when determining the "Invocation Applicability" the actual arguments expressions supplied are tested if they are "Pertinent to Applicabilility" and the Constraint set is being reduced and resolved and merged with the bound set.
My question is - that when we are trying to infer the "Invocation Type" why are actual argument expressions ei
included in the set of valid constraints only when they are "not pertinent to applicability"?
Upvotes: 1
Views: 42