[JSR308] array-valued annotations

[Ted Neward]

Any obvious line we can draw where we'd be crossing into "changing the
semantics of the language"?

As a friend of mine a long time ago put it (pardon the pun), 90% of all
arguments are over semantics.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM [mailto:Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:23 AM
> To: Eugene Kuleshov; ted at tedneward.com
> Cc: jsr308 at csail.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [JSR308] array-valued annotations
> 
> Yes, the JSR's proposal clearly states the intention is to change the
> language, at least in terms of allowing annotations to be used in more
> syntactic locations.  That is distinct from changing the semantics of
> the language.
> 
> -Joe
> 
> 
> Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
> >
> >  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: 268.17.15/659 - Release Date: 1/30/2007
> 9:31 AM
> 

-- 
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