On 03/12/2019 17:15, Brian Goetz wrote:
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.
Should reflection speak about 'has a record attribute XYZ' ? I don't
think so (we agree here perhaps).
But I think that 4.7:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/jep359-20191125/specs/records-jvms.html#jvms-4.7
looks pretty much spot on in listing the Record attribute in the same
list as Signature, EnclosingMethod and other things that are relevant
reflection-wise (hence the format-check).
Maurizio
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
