switch to amber-spec-experts, because it's about the binary representation of a Record in the classfile.
----- Mail original ----- > De: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <maurizio.cimadam...@oracle.com> > À: "Harold David Seigel" <harold.sei...@oracle.com>, "amber-dev" > <amber-...@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Octobre 2019 22:03:23 > Objet: Re: Class.getRecordComponent() javadoc doesn't specify its behavior if > the accessor of a record component is not > present > It's the usual question: do we fail when we access things reflectively > that don't seem to be there (either fully or partially) ? Or do we > silently ignore? > > I know that we have examples of both; for instance, nestmates went the > 'throw an exception' path if a member of the nest cannot be found; but > annotations went a different path, and annotations that are not found > are simply discarded. > > One might argue that annotations are 'metadata' so less crucial than > properties such as record component-ness or nestmate-ness. But still > there's a choice. > > And, whatever we do, we should probably be consistent with any kind of > error that could popup when parsing the record component attribute, such > as illegal modifiers and such. But, I guess for missing annotations on a > record component we should be consistent with the rest of the JDK, and > just drop them on the floor. Technically a record component as no modifier, and yes this worry me a bit because it's not very future proof, we may decide to add null/non-null keywords later, that said, we can still use a new attribute (an attribute of the record component) for that. > > Maurizio Rémi
