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

[Neal Gafter]

I didn't intend this as a complete argument, but on the other hand I also
didn't intend to be sarcastic.  The spec currently takes the approach of
specifying annotations for each context separately, and I don't remember
hearing anything that sounded like consensus that this is the right
approach, though it does appear to be our starting point.

On 2/25/07, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> JSR308 mailing list
> JSR308 at lists.csail.mit.edu
> https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr308
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/jsr308/attachments/20070225/cdc7b61e/attachment.html