> On 28 Apr 2017, at 14:10, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > As this is a binary incompatible change, effectively removing a public > constructor, I'd prefer if this change got into JDK 9 instead, pending the > review process of course. >
Fair point, the earlier the better in that regard. > (I've thought it would be worthwhile to audit the JDK for default > constructors and/or add a javac lint warning for that situation, but I > haven't done that, yet.) > If we used something like error prone (perhaps with integration into javac) i presume this would be rather easy to do. Paul.
