Can we get a Java FX 8 SubSpace?

Question

I was going to suggest this before the scheduled update to the amazing forum we have now, but the thread was closed already, and no one was able to comment anymore( I was late).
I feel there soon will be a lot of questions just for 8, and that will be a lot different from the 2.x questions.  As well as bugs and such not associated with 2.x.
I don't mind sharing forum space with 2.x users, nor(hopefully) do they mind sharing it with the FX8 users, but I feel we should get another "SubSpace" at some point.
It also might not be a good idea since 8 isn't really used by many(I only have seen myself and maybe 2-3 other users) who have asked FX8 questions.
Just curious how others feel?

Answer 1

Thank you for your attention. I really appreciate it.
Can we get a look at this latest pre-press version?You will have ask the author. He doesn't read this forum.I was sort of hoping you (or someone else who reads the forum) would ask for us, if you consider it a reasonable idea. You have a little more purchase seeing as you know him (gafter?) personally. ie "Dear colleague, I thought I should let you know that the throngs are clamoring for a look at the latest version of the jls3. Perhaps we can release it informally, somehow?"
I don't know - maybe it's going to come out next week. It's tough, though, not knowing precisely when! It has been Real Soon Now for a while.
Thanks for trying to answer my question. Those two RFEs are indeed interesting, but don't quite apply to my question. I see now where I got confused, however:
Basically my problem was just that "intersection types" sound alot like those synthetic type variables "Capture of ? whatever". They come up during capture and inference, you can't write them textually, and they have the same members as a type variable with the same bounds.
Upon further review, I see now that they are not the same thing. Please excuse me.
I guess my confusion just comes from the fact that type variables with non-nulltype lower bounds are not normatively described in the section for type variables. Lower bounds for type variables are not mentioned at all except by reference, in these two places:
"If Ti is a wildcard type argument of the form ? super Bi..."
"a type variable is a direct supertype of its lower bound."
So... it seems like: either there needs to be a mention of lower bounds in the definition of type variables, or there needs to be a 'subtype' of type variables called "captured variables" or something similar.
interface TypeVariable {
     List<Type> getUpperBounds();
interface CapturedVariable extends TypeVariable {
     Type getLowerBound();
}no?