Under that interpretation, that leaves record members in a funny place, since a given mandated member (e.g., an accessor for a component) _might_ have been explicit in the source, or might not have been. Should ACC_MANDATED describe the member descriptor (“spec mandates a member with this descriptor”) or only the implementation (“the source didn’t have it, but its here in the byte code”)? In the latter interpretation, the presence of ACC_MANDATED on a mandated member would basically be random, based on implementation-of-the-day, which seems wrong.
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > > A mandated construct is one that is mandated by the specification, but not > explicitly declared. Constructs of that sort have been in the platform since > the beginning, such as default constructors. ACC_MANDATED was added to the > platform only more recently and has some exposure through javax.lang.model. > > I recommend going forward ACC_MANDATED to be used more widely, on all the > mandated structures, including the values methods on enum types, etc. > > Cheers, > > -Joe > > On 10/10/2019 8:50 AM, Brian Goetz wrote: >> We should match the behavior of methods like `Enum::values`. >> >>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> fields and methods of a record are marked ACC_MANDATED which contradict JLS >>> 13.1.12 that explains that you can not use ACC_MANDATED on field and method. >>> >>> regards, >>> Rémi >>>
