On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 19:50:56 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ok, thanks! So if I'm understanding, the cases in the switch are currently >> necessary, and longer term cases can be removed as the parser is updated to >> store end positions directly on the additional AST node kinds. Does that >> sound right, or are there additional changes here that should be made now? > >> Ok, thanks! So if I'm understanding, the cases in the switch are currently >> necessary, and longer term cases can be removed as the parser is updated to >> store end positions directly on the additional AST node kinds. Does that >> sound right, or are there additional changes here that should be made now? > > That is my understanding as well. (I was hoping some of them would be > redundant -- but it seems that's not the case) I filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8372948 to keep track of this, and have a draft in https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/29463 in that passes tests. I need to give more thought to how to ensure the invariants we want are being maintained, and that nodes that should have end positions always have them after that change. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28610#discussion_r2736177100
