[JSR308] array-valued annotations

[Eugene Kuleshov]

  Ted, can we please keep discussion constructive? Of course that 
example won't compile on 1.5 or 1.6, but that is the point of JSR 308. 
JSR 308 does in fact propose changes in the Java language and introduces 
new bytecode attributes, but it does not suggest changes in the JVM 
itself. You can already download compiler that implements proposed 
changes and play with it on 1.5 or 1.6 VM. See 
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/jsr308/

  Also note that Danny Coward is a specification co-lead, so we are ok 
as long and as long as he is comfortable with proposed changes  even if 
some of the Sun employees don't like those changes. Also see the scope 
section which has some important clarifications. 
http://pag.csail.mit.edu/jsr308/#Scope

  regards,
  Eugene


Ted Neward wrote:
>> 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.
> We do have a significant problem in your example, though, David; unless I
> miss my guess, it won't compile. (At least, not in 1.5; I don't have a 1.6
> compiler handy to test it.) That means that no matter how much we want to
> support that kind of syntax, it's not within the purview of this JSR to
> permit or mandate. 
>
> As I understand the scope of the JSR (and reinforced by Joe's comment of a
> few days ago), we cannot change the language. Period. No matter how much we
> might want to, no matter how useful the suggestion made will be, no matter
> how much we all agree it should be there.
>
> (Now, if we want to try and expand the scope of the JSR to include language
> and/or JVM changes, and we can get buy-off from Sun to do so, then let's do
> so, by all means....)
>