Thanks for the data!
Can you clarify: is 1 out of 55Kfiles for the "all raw type refs"
option, or the "only for raw enum refs"? It looks like you are saying
the former?
On 12/10/2018 4:27 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
I did some corpus analysis for the following question from your doc:
There is a question on how broadly we want to affect typing rules
for raw types; one option is to alter the rules for all type
references; another, more conservative option, would be to use the
refined rules only for enum raw type references (on the basis that
generic enums and raw types will be frequently used together). The
latter path has the clear advantage of avoiding all kinds of
source compatibility issues, but it is more inconsistent -
refactoring a generic enum into a class might lead to surprises.
I found roughly one breaking change per 55000 files.
For context that's about four times as many as the fix that was
discussed recently for JDK-8207224. Less quantitatively, in the corpus
I looked at it is noticeable but wouldn't be very difficult to work
around, especially because there's usually a trivial
semantics-preserving fix of adding an explicit unchecked cast.
(For the analysis I applied only the changes to Types from the
enhanced-enums branch, and commented out all of the `isEnum` checks.)
