On 04/02/2014 12:05 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/02/2014 11:58 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 02.04.2014 11:08, schrieb Andrew Haley: >>> On 04/01/2014 10:20 PM, Eirik Lygre wrote: >>>> What is the relationship between this "naked dot" proposal and the >>>> "chaining of void methods" proposal? The reason for asking is not to be >>>> negative, but rather to find out if these issues are best dealt with >>>> together, or as independent proposals. >>>> >>>> I think that if either of these are going to happen, then they must be >>>> specified with the appropriate level of isolation: That which belongs >>>> together must be processed together; that which belongs apart must be >>>> processed apart. >>> Point taken, but Project Coin (small language changes) worked well. >> >> If that would help to make things happen, I support the idea to separate >> both steps to different >> proposals. > > Here's how it works: > > Start a project to do small language changes, or join an existing one. > Form an EG for the JSR. It may be be that there is already a suitable > JSR in progress. > > Discuss. Make spec changes, make an implementation, make TCK changes. > > Propose the change to the umbrella Java SE EG for inclusion in JDK N.
As Patrick Wright has pointed out, this would be a JEP. See http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1 Andrew.
