Brian Goetz wrote: > I'm all for unintrusive. Though note that the intrusiveness metric on > language features I(f) is not uniform across observers :)
Indeed :-) > > Here's my straw man > > proposal: > > > > Add an annotation that can be placed on native methods to synthesize > > atomic accessor methods. > > I suspect you were expecting this response: we don't add language > semantics through annotations. Technically, we're not adding language semantics. The JVM is the one interpreting the annotations. BTW, as I mentioned in another post in this thread, I specifically asked about this at the JVM Language Summit (in 2012 IIRC) and the answer was (by Alex IIRC) that there is no such rule. > I'm not trying to frustrate you; evolving a language with millions of > users is really, really hard. And one of the things that makes it hard > is recognizing our intrinsic conflicts of interest between "what good > will this do me" and "what harm will it do others." I understand, that's why I want to avoid adding language support for this niche/specialist feature. Regards, Jeroen
