<ping> >> De: "Gavin Bierman" <gavin.bier...@oracle.com> >> À: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net>, "amber-dev" >> <amber-...@openjdk.java.net> >> Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2019 15:17:34 >> Objet: Updated Draft specs for JEP 359 (Records)
>> An updated draft language spec for JEP 359 (Records) is available at: >> [ >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191031/specs/records-jls.html >> | >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191031/specs/records-jls.html >> ] >> (Alongside is a draft JVM spec for this feature: >> [ >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191031/specs/records-jvms.html >> | >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191031/specs/records-jvms.html >> ] >> ) > I've read the JVMS draft, it's ok for me. > I still think that not supporting @Deprecated on a record component is a > mistake. > Both Scala [1] and C# support deprecating ""property"", so we know that there > is > a need. > And let's not forget that at some point in the future, Scala or Kotlin may > want > to retrofit their case class/data class to record when possible to have a > better Java integration. >> As always, please email me any comments/thoughts/bugs. > regards, > Rémi
