On Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:33:18 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Basically, if `@SuppressWarnings("suppression")` was accidentally left with
> no suppressions under it, the compiler would warn you, so you could remove
> it. Because what's the reason for `@SuppressWarnings("suppression")` whose
> scope contains no suppressions?
Sorry I didn't address this question before - but yes, this is a reasonable
ida. It would basically be adding an exception to the exception. So, a bit of
additional complexity but for a worthwhile cause. To stretch the analogy, it
would be like making the observation: "If the area of the wall is zero, then
you never need to post a "POST NO BILLS" bill on it".
I can think of one possible wrinkle though: warnings can actually be suppressed
in the source code in two ways, by `@SuppressWarnings` and by `@Deprecated`
(see `Lint.suppressionsFrom(Symbol)`). So you'd also have to look for
`@Deprecated`; but this also brings up the unsettling possibility that in the
future, some new annotation might have a similar side-effect, and then we'd be
in trouble again. So there is an aspect of this idea that requires us to make
certain predictions about the future, which of course is dangerous. I think
it's safer to "just say no".
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25167#issuecomment-3329828755
