Oh, wow. I did vaguely recall mentioning this missing feature. Apparently, it was on a thread you started: https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/compiler-dev/2023-October/024417.html
Well, thank you, I guess. I should maybe contribute instead of just complaining, and things might happen earlier :). I'm just not so great with long bureaucratic processes, and generally lost how to start if I believe a feature (even if small) should be implemented in the JDK (or related tools). That is, my general expectation would be that if I just send a PR, then it would be ignored and lost within the many things of the JDK (at least as far as I have seen, actually implementing it is usually secondary to having it discussed with relevant people). Archie Cobbs <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2026. jan. 24., Szo, 15:08): > Funny you should mention that... :) > > In JDK 26+ you will be able to do this via flags like -Werror:static > > See https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349847 for details. > > -Archie > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 7:08 AM Attila Kelemen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> My $0.02: This is an easy call. The answer is that it's not worth >>> changing because (b) this would cause legacy to to start failing to >>> compile, which is violates Java's stellar reputation for backward >>> compatibility, and (b) there is already a perfectly reasonable workaround, >>> i.e. -Xlint:static -Werror. >>> >> >> I'm not arguing that the original request should be implemented and break >> existing code (bad as they are). However, this suggestion doesn't really >> work, because javac doesn't support different sets of values for `Werror` >> and for mere warnings. That is, I usually want to turn on almost everything >> for `Xlint` , but I definitely don't want every warning to be an error >> (most notably, I don't want `@deprecated` to immediately fail compilation, >> but I want it to be reported as a warning). >> > > > -- > Archie L. Cobbs >
