[JSR308] array-valued annotations

[David Wagner]

Ted Neward writes:
>I think we're trying to decide if (a) an annotation on a local variable
>declaration is part of its type signature, [...]
>Assuming (a) is false, and that the annotations are not part of the type
>signature, [...]

I think that speaking of "the type system" is misleading.
There is not just one type system; there may be multiple type systems
floating around.

First, there is the base Java type system (i.e., the type system that
results after erasing the annotations).  The base Java type system is
what is enforced by "javac" and what is specified in the JLS.

Second, there is the type system enforced by the plug-in that processes
these annotations.  In many cases, the expectation is that there will be
some plug-in or some source code analysis tool that will inspect the
annotations and use the annotations to reject or warn about certain code
constructs.  In many cases, this may amount to the plug-in specifying and
enforcing a strictly more restrictive type system than the base Java type
system.

For instance, in the code:
    @Nonnull Object[@Nonnull] a;
the type of 'a' in the base Java type system is Object[], while the
type in the plug-in's type system might be "a nonnull reference to an
array holding nonnull references to Object".

Note that plug-ins can enforce a more restrictive type system even though
they cannot change the underlying base Java type system.

One of the purposes of JSR308 annotations is to make it possible for
plug-in writers to design and enforce richer type systems -- all without
changing the base Java type system.