[JSR308] Re: JSR308 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 20

[Tim Peierls]

I agree with Neal that the issue was resolved prematurely.

But Neal's characterization of the current spec, while technically accurate,
uses ... sarcasm, which I hope is only being deployed in an effort to get
the issue back on the table, not as a complete argument in itself.

--tim

On 2/25/07, jsr308-request at lists.csail.mit.edu <
jsr308-request at lists.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> From: "Neal Gafter" <gafter at google.com>
> On 2/25/07, Michael Ernst <mernst at csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > A postfix syntax for type annotations was brought up three times on the
> > mailing list, and once more when I asked for comments.  Hearing no
> > support
> > for it, I have moved it to the "Resolved issues" of the JSR 308 webpage:
> >
>
>
> Do I understand you to be saying that your sense of the group is that it
> is preferred to have the current spec's ~15 separate syntactic solutions (to
> the contexts where types appear in the grammar) than a single solution for
> all of them?  I didn't read the discussions this way.  At best I would have
> read that most people didn't seem to care.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/jsr308/attachments/20070225/ef6b5484/attachment.html