On 12/02/2015 02:20 PM, Victor Rudometov wrote:
On 02.12.2015 21:09, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Adding Victor back into the recipients.
-- Jon
On 12/02/2015 10:08 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 12/02/2015 09:41 AM, Victor Rudometov wrote:
Hi,
Javac does not complain if user exports a package that does not
exist. If it was not done intentionally, it would be good to report
an error, or at least a warning.
Today was the third time I saw the code with a typo or just
incorrect package name in module-info's exports statement.
Thanks.
Victor.
I agree we should improve javac in this area. We probably need some
spec clarification from Alex on the intent here. See JLS 8, 7.4.3
Observability of a package. In particular, that says that a package
is observable if a subpackage is observable. javac tries to honor
that specification, but there are well known hard-to-fix bugs in
this area.
As for module declarations, if p.q.Class exists in a module and
no other classes anywhere in p or its subpackages, is it OK to
export p from the module? From the point of view of the module, the
package is observable, but it seems intuitively wrong to allow an
export of a package that contains no types. In other words, if we
are going to catch typos in exported package names, I think we ought
to consider "empty" packages as well as mistyped packages.
-- Jon
I agree with you, it is worth to consider disallowing "empty" packages
together with mistyped ones.
While I do not see the use for mistyped non-existing packages there
are cases when "empty" might be useful. F.e., is the case of p.q.Class
and p.r.OtherClass it would be easier to export just p, rather than
both p.q and p.r. However I'd prefer to write explicit p.q and p.r.
Victor
exports should never include subpackages, so "exports p;" could only
ever mean "exports public types in package p" which raises the
additional question, what if package p is not empty, but has no public
types to be exported.
-- Jon
