Currently looking in detail at the changes there is not on my radar, but on
first impressions not much would necessarily change. AspectJ matches
against the generic declarations as well, not just the erasure:
-- A.java --
import java.util.*;
public class A {
List<String> ls;
List<Integer> ln;
public void foo() {
ls = new ArrayList<String>();
ln = new ArrayList<Integer>();
}
}
aspect X {
before(): set(List<String> *) {}
before(): set(List<Integer> *) {}
before(): set(List<Number+> *) {}
}
-- end of A.java --
C:\temp>ajc -1.5 A.java -showWeaveInfo
Join point 'field-set(java.util.List A.ls)' in Type 'A' (A.java:8) advised
by before advice from 'X' (A.java:14)
Join point 'field-set(java.util.List A.ln)' in Type 'A' (A.java:9) advised
by before advice from 'X' (A.java:16)
Join point 'field-set(java.util.List A.ln)' in Type 'A' (A.java:9) advised
by before advice from 'X' (A.java:15)
Andy.
2008/9/23 Mohan Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi,
> Aspectj matches against the erasure (e.g) Erasure of
> List<String> is List.
>
> How would AspectJ change if Generics without erasure is
> implemented as everyone is demanding it ?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Mohan
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
_______________________________________________
aspectj-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
