Hi all,
currently a sealed interface is abstract and final,
after having updated ASM to read sealed class/attribute, i try to test it with
some sealed types running some bytecode rewriters of mine, and it was ugly.
2 of them flatly don't work on sealed types, because there are written with the
a
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 11:38:42 PM CEST Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think that if stream values deserialize into a record through its public
> API (the canonical constructor which can be customized), then record
> components that are serailzed must also be obtained from a record via
Hi Chris,
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:56:55 PM CEST Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Please find a link to the draft serialization spec for records:
>
> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/records/spec/records-serialization.03.ht
> ml
>
> This spec will be updated to reflect the upcoming core reflectio
Hi Chris,
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 12:56:55 PM CEST Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Please find a link to the draft serialization spec for records:
>
> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/records/spec/records-serialization.03.ht
> ml
>
> This spec will be updated to reflect the upcoming core reflectio
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 6:21:45 PM CEST Brian Goetz wrote:
> > In these scheme, canonical constructor also acts as instance initializer,
> > since it is always called from other constructors. Classical instance
> > initializer is therefore not needed any more and could be prohibited in
> > recor
In these scheme, canonical constructor also acts as instance initializer,
since it is always called from other constructors. Classical instance
initializer is therefore not needed any more and could be prohibited in record
types.
I would agree that instance initializers in records are mostly
Hi,
Just thinking loud here...
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 3:27:38 PM CEST Peter Levart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 9/6/19 2:54 AM, Brian Goetz wrote:
> > In that case, what we would see is that on exit, neither i nor j were
> > either DA or DU, and we would issue a compiler error. For each field,
>
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "Peter Levart"
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts"
> Envoyé: Dimanche 6 Octobre 2019 17:06:14
> Objet: Re: Draft JLS spec for records - local types
>> When reading the spec, the following caught my attention:
>>
>> """A nested record type is implicitly
> When reading the spec, the following caught my attention:
>
> """A nested record type is implicitly static. It is permitted for the
> declaration of a nested record type to redundantly specify the static
> modifier.
>
>This implies that it is impossible to declare a record type in the bod
On Friday, August 23, 2019 11:25:05 PM CEST Gavin Bierman wrote:
> A draft language spec for records is available at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/8222777/8222777-20190823/specs/records->
> jls.html
Hi Gavin,
When reading the spec, the following caught my attention:
"""A nested rec
10 matches
Mail list logo
