[JSR308] array-valued annotations

Ted Neward ted at tedneward.com
Tue Jan 30 14:59:32 EST 2007


OK, cool! My understanding from Joe's comments earlier were that we were not
permitted to change the language, only introduce annotations within the
existing syntactical locations. My apologies.

That said, I still question the wisdom of varying the type (where by type I
mean type + the locally-declared annotations) within a jagged array
declaration. Just seems to contravene the intent of how array declarations
work in Java today.

Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsr308-bounces at lists.csail.mit.edu [mailto:jsr308-
> bounces at lists.csail.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Eugene Kuleshov
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 8:57 AM
> To: jsr308 at csail.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [JSR308] array-valued annotations
> 
> 
>   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....)
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> JSR308 mailing list
> JSR308 at lists.csail.mit.edu
> https://lists.csail.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/jsr308
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/658 - Release Date: 1/29/2007
> 2:49 PM
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007
9:31 AM
 




More information about the JSR308 mailing list