(Removing compiler-dev. Cross-posting to *-dev and *-spec-experts list
is wrong. We're discussing a question driven mainly by Records, so let's
treat it as Amber spec territory.)
On 11/22/2019 12:02 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
On Nov 22, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Leonid Kuskov
<leonid.kus...@oracle.com> wrote:
Does it make sense to add a definition of ACC_MANDATED to the
tables?
To clarify: are you saying javac is using the 0x8000 flags on fields
and methods, despite this flag being undefined in these contexts? Or
are you saying that you think we should *start* using the flag on
fields and methods, with supporting changes to the spec?
(The first would be a bug, the second would be a minor new feature.)
Leonid is asking for the second. Have I forgotten a discussion how
enum/records' mandated members are represented in the class file? I see
internal Slack questions every week about mandated members and
reflection, but there's nothing in the JVMS draft to set expectations.
(If we decided NOT to define ACC_MANDATED in
{field_info,method_info}.access_flags, then the JVMS should discuss that
in a note in 4.7.8, since "mandated members" are indicated there.)
Alex
