On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:29 PM, John Tamplin <j...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:24 PM, <cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Very cool. Lex, wasn't there also a proposal a while back to allow the >> current class to be omitted if you're referring to a method in the same >> class, e.g. >> >> @this::someMethod(??)(a,b) >> >> or >> >> @class::someMethod(??)(a,b) ? >> >> or maybe just >> >> @::someMethod(??)(a,b) > > I believe this last one was the syntax we settled on (though at the time we > discussed * to mean any arguments).
I would like being able to leave out the class type. It's simply extra work and somebody has to get around to it. Already this patch has been implemented for months now. Do you remember, John, if we included the :: if the class type was left off? I was thinking we could do @someMethod(??)(a,b), which is more concise. Regording * vs. ?, I used * to begin with, and there was a request to change it to ? at the meeting. I changed it to ?? in this patch because potentially we'd want to use a single ? as an individual wildcard type rather than a sequence of them. > Also, we discussed using imports for > class resolution, though I am not sure how hard it is to get at them for JDT > (and it doesn't impact IHM, since we already have to read the source to get > JSNI source anyway). Yes, that would be good, too. This improvement is the hardest one of the bunch. In theory, the JDT should provide the information via its "scope" and/or "environment" objects. That's good, because then we can use the true Java naming rules including accessing inner types from parent classes. Lex -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
