I have a proposal on how to solve SafeVarargs problem: 1. Do not allow annotating record type with SafeVarargs 2. If the record type has explicit canonical/compact constructor, the heap pollution warning should be issued on the constructor, rather than on record header declaration 3. If explicit canonical/compact constructor is annotated with SafeVarargs, no warning should be issued.
So if one has a record declaration with potential heap pollution, and want to declare that varargs are safe, they must explicitly add an empty compact constructor and annotate it with SafeVarargs. Given that this case should be extremely rare in practice, such an amount of boilerplate doesn't look too big to me. On the other hand, such solution requires less changes in Java (e.g. no need to allow SafeVarargs on types). What do you think? With best regards, Tagir Valeev. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:10 PM Tagir Valeev <amae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > More questions about SafeVarargs: > > 1. If we have a compact constructor declared, should the warning be > issued at record header or at compact constructor declaration? To > suppress the warning should I annotate a record type or compact > constructor? > > 2. The same if explicit canonical constructor is declared. > > To me, it seems logical to put SafeVarargs at record type if compact > constructor is present (because the variable arity parameter is not > explicitly written in constructor declaration). However, if explicit > canonical constructor is declared, it seems better to require > SafeVarargs at constructor declaration, rather than a record > declaration. Or place it in either place (but not at both). > > What do you think? > > With best regards, > Tagir Valeev.
