Thank Vicente,
I suppose you also have visible and invisible annotations as attribute too ?
Rémi
- Mail original -
> De: "Vicente Romero"
> À: "Remi Forax" , "amber-spec-experts"
>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 4 Octobre 2019 23:33:27
> Objet: Re: Record bytecode format not described in JEP 359
Hi Remi,
In the meantime you should be able to access the current definition of
the Record attribute at [1].
Thanks,
Vicente
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225058
On 10/4/19 3:52 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
Hi everyone,
i'm implementing the support of record (and sealed types) in
The JEP issue has a sub-task, JVMS for records, which is where the spec
would be attached. There is currently no draft there, but we'll post
one soon.
On 10/4/2019 3:52 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
Hi everyone,
i'm implementing the support of record (and sealed types) in ASM as an
experimental
Hi everyone,
i'm implementing the support of record (and sealed types) in ASM as an
experimental (preview if you prefer) feature of the future ASM8.
The JEP 359 [1], doesn't include the bytecode format of the Record attribute,
is there a reason ?
Rémi
[1] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/359
Of course! My bad. Compilation unit which usually maps to .java file
when compiling files...
That's perfectly sensible as a scope to define inference within.
Regards, Peter
On 10/2/19 11:08 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
You speak of "compilation unit" as if it means the scope of work
performed by
