Hi all,
iwas fianlly enable to have the time to read the spec, yay !
In section 8.10.3::
- what if the record implements an interface with a default method that
provides an implementation for a getter. Currently this implementation is
ignored but i don't know if it's surprising or not. Maybe we should ask
explicitly for the user providing an implementation of the getter in that case
?
So this example should not compile ?
interface I {
default int x() {
System.out.println("foo");
return -1;
}
}
record Foo(int x) implements I { }
In section 8.10.4:
- why the constructor has to be public, if the record is used inside the class,
i don't want someone to be able to instantiate it by reflection.
public class PublicConstructorProblem {
private record Foo(int x) { }
public static Object foo() {
return new Foo(42);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Object o = foo();
Object o2 = o.getClass().getConstructor(int.class).newInstance(43);
System.out.println(o2);
}
}
- a canonical constructor can not have throws clause (from the text of the
section) but the grammar in 8.10.2 the CompactConstructor declaration can have
a throw clause ?
- the allowed modifier for a compact constructor should be explicitly listed
By example, i believe strictfp or synchronized should be allowed
public record StrictFP() {
public strictfp StrictFP { }
}
but the current prototype rejects that code.
regards,
Rémi
> De: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bier...@oracle.com>
> À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 23 Août 2019 23:25:05
> Objet: Draft JLS spec for records
> A draft language spec for records is available at:
> [
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/8222777/8222777-20190823/specs/records-jls.html
> |
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/8222777/8222777-20190823/specs/records-jls.html
> ]
> This spec doesn’t yet discuss varargs records - to appear in the next draft.
> All comments welcomed!
> Thanks,
> Gavin
