Spec now updated as per this suggestion (http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~gbierman/jep359/latest)
> On 29 Dec 2019, at 19:15, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > Yes, i agree. > > Rémi > > De: "Brian Goetz" <brian.go...@oracle.com> > À: "Tagir Valeev" <amae...@gmail.com>, "amber-spec-experts" > <amber-spec-experts@openjdk.java.net> > Envoyé: Dimanche 29 Décembre 2019 18:35:08 > Objet: Re: [records] SafeVarargs and canonical constructors > This seems a very practical place to land here. > > On 12/29/2019 12:32 PM, Tagir Valeev wrote: > 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> > <mailto: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. > >
