> On 19 Sep 2020, at 10:23, Tagir Valeev <amae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:40 PM Gavin Bierman <gavin.bier...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> - It is annotated with the annotations, if any, that appear on the
>> corresponding
>> record component and whose annotation types are applicable in the method
>> declaration context, or in type contexts, or both. **The rules for these
>> annotation modifiers, if any, on the accessor method are the same as for a
>> method declaration, and are specified in [9.7.4] and [9.7.5].**
>>
>> The last sentence is new, and mirrors what is said about normal method
>> declarations in §8.4.3.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I'm not very good in English but I'm fine if this statement
> unambiguously imply that
> if the annotation is not applicable to the method, then this is a
> compilation error to put it on the record accessor.
Well it’s as unambiguous as the existing text around annotations on method
declarations :-)
I think to further emphasise this point, I will add the following text after
the list of properties of the implicitly declared accessor method:
An implicitly declared accessor method must satisfy all the rules for a
method in a normal class declaration ([8.4]).
That makes it crystal clear (I hope).
>
> Btw, we allowed Override on explicit accessors, so now it might be
> unclear whether it's allowed on implicit ones.
>
> Also what if we mark the record component with `@SafeVarargs` and
> define an explicit accessor without this annotation? Like:
>
> record X(@SafeVarargs int y) {
> @Override
> public int y() {
> return y;
> }
> }
>
> Is this acceptable? Javac 15 happily compiles this.
Under the current rules this is acceptable; as the @SafeVarargs annotation is
not propagated to the explicitly declared accessor method.
>
> This brings more general question: is it allowed to put an annotation
> that targeted to METHOD only if we define explicit accessor? In this
> case, the annotation is not propagated anywhere and completely
> disappears from the bytecode, even if it has CLASS/RUNTIME retention.
> So probably this code should be rejected as mistaken?
That’s a very good question - well spotted. I think there is a good case to
call that out as a compile-time error. Opinions everyone?
Gavin
