Question for anyone on the list. What do you think about adding a limited number of String constants to identify common warning types? I personally don't like raw string in my code and would prefer to use constants for them.
I would prefer something like: @SuppressWarnings(UNCHECKED) // static import from SuppressWarnings My choices would be: public static final String ALL = "all"; public static final String FALL_THROUGH = "fallthrough"; public static final String SERIAL = "serial"; public static final String UNCHECKED = "unchecked"; >From what I understand, the warnings are vendor specific, but reality shows me there's a practical pool of constants already in use. From the javadoc: > Compiler vendors should document the warning names they support in > conjunction with this annotation type. They are encouraged to cooperate > to ensure that the same names work across multiple compilers. Would such a patch be considered? Paul
