On 03/05/2014 05:55 PM, Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Brian Goetz wrote:
I'm all for unintrusive. Though note that the intrusiveness metric on
language features I(f) is not uniform across observers :)
Indeed :-)
Here's my straw man
proposal:
Add an annotation that can be placed on native methods to synthesize
atomic accessor methods.
I suspect you were expecting this response: we don't add language
semantics through annotations.
Technically, we're not adding language semantics. The JVM is the one
interpreting the annotations. BTW, as I mentioned in another post in this
thread, I specifically asked about this at the JVM Language Summit (in 2012
IIRC) and the answer was (by Alex IIRC) that there is no such rule.
and that's not true,
the meta-annotations @Inherited or @Target change the semantics of the
annotated annotation.
I'm not trying to frustrate you; evolving a language with millions of
users is really, really hard. And one of the things that makes it hard
is recognizing our intrinsic conflicts of interest between "what good
will this do me" and "what harm will it do others."
I understand, that's why I want to avoid adding language support for this
niche/specialist feature.
Regards,
Jeroen
Rémi
