I am not even sure if “has a record attribute” isn’t overkill. “Is a record class” is the more proper semantic specification, and it’s not clear to me that reflection api spec is the place to record these things.
Sent from my MacBook Wheel > On Dec 3, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Alex Buckley <alex.buck...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 12/3/2019 8:49 AM, Dan Smith wrote: >> So, >> Fine: "isRecord returns true if the class extends java.lang.Record >> and has a Record attribute." (a little more detailed than most >> reflection methods, but that's probably good) >> Overkill: "isRecord returns true if the class extends >> java.lang.Record and has a Record attribute that conforms to the >> following rules ..." > > Yes. "has a Record attribute" is the most that the broadly-read API spec > should admit about the class file. Even "has a *well-formed* Record > attribute" would be too much, since it quickly devolves into your overkill > scenario. > > Alex
