On 10/1/13 10:19 PM, John Rose wrote:
> Chris Thalinger suggested removing the new booleans from the changed
> "getDirectMethod" call sites and instead put the intended usage into the
> method names, e.g., "getDirectMethodNoSecurityManager". The result is more
> clearly correct and maintainable
On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Christian Thalinger
wrote:
> src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandles.java:
>
> + * lookup expression
>
> Apparently the name attribute is obsolete for in HTML5:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/a.html
>
> I think they want you to use .
>
> +
On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:09 PM, John Rose wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Vladimir Ivanov
> wrote:
>
>> I cleaned javadoc a little [1], so it is more readable in the browser now.
>
> Thanks; I applied those edits. I fixed the problem of a missing in a few
> other places too.
>
>> The
Push-button webrev generator to the rescue:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/8024599/webrev.01
— John
On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Christian Thalinger
wrote:
> Since there is no new webrev I assume you incorporated all the stuff below.
> If that's the case then it looks good.
>
> On Sep
Thank you for doing this; it is much clearer now. Looks good.
On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:19 PM, John Rose wrote:
> Chris Thalinger suggested removing the new booleans from the changed
> "getDirectMethod" call sites and instead put the intended usage into the
> method names, e.g., "getDirectMethodN
src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandles.java:
+ * lookup expression
Apparently the name attribute is obsolete for in HTML5:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/a.html
I think they want you to use .
+ *
+ *
+ * Discussion of private access:
Same here.
+ * Securi
Looks good.
On Oct 1, 2013, at 2:29 PM, John Rose wrote:
> Second call for reviews. I need two official Reviewers for this change. —
> John
>
> P.S. Thanks for your comments Morris; I enhanced the comment:
>
> +// The JVM does this hack also.
> ++ // (See ClassVerifier::verify_invoke
Since there is no new webrev I assume you incorporated all the stuff below. If
that's the case then it looks good.
On Sep 20, 2013, at 6:18 PM, John Rose wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 8:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> I don't see much value in documenting buggy behavior of
Hi all,
Hope this is the right mailing list to post on, apologies for the slight OT
post.
A few people asked whether the LJC could/would host a JVM language summit
in Europe which would hopefully cover the EMEA based folks that can't make
the existing summit.
I'd like to get an idea of whether t
