On 18/12/2012 3:06 AM, Joel Borggrén-Franck wrote:
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Peter Levart<peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Joel,
82 // This is set by the vm at Method creation
83 private byte[] type_annotations;
Wouldn't it be better to initialize this field in the constructor? You could
create an overloaded constructor if you wanted to be compatible with previous
versions of the VM.
Fields aren't created using a constructor as far as I can see.
Correct, all the reflection objects are allocated directly by the VM and
initialized field by field as needed. No Java level constructor involved.
This change is also fine with me, on the proviso that the follow up
change to deal with efficiency and the field name is not too far away.
Though really I don't think the change of name will be that big a deal
anyway.
Cheers,
David
cheers
/Joel
