I think we're reaching diminishing returns here. Here's how I would
think about this:
- We do an applicability check to see if the annotation _could apply_
to any of the things we are going to generate. If the target isn't one
of param/method/field/component, we issue an error.
- If there is an annotation on a component that only applies to method
/ param, but the corresponding method/param is explicitly declare, oh
well. We promise to propagate well-formed annotations to all the places
that it would apply, and "zero" is a valid value of all.
On 9/28/2020 6:21 AM, Gavin Bierman wrote:
There’s one minor corner-case that I bring to your attention. Consider the
following:
@Target(ElementType.METHOD)
@interface A { }
record R(@A int x) {
int x() { return this.x; }
}
The new rules ensure that this is an error as the annotation on the record
component is not propagated anywhere because of the explicit accessor
declaration. However, what if the accessor was annotated with the same
annotation?
@Target(ElementType.METHOD)
@interface A { }
record R(@A int x) {
@A int x() { return this.x; }
}
As it stands, the spec rules this out as an error. For simple annotations,
equality is simple to define, but do we want to attempt to define it for all
kinds of annotations? This feels like it’s not worth the complexity, but I’d be
happy to hear opinions.
