Thanks for the confirmation. I will submit this finalized specification for CSR
review.
________________________________
From: javadoc-dev <[email protected]> on behalf of Alex Buckley
<[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 10:53 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RFR: 8336754: Remodel TypeAnnotation to "has" instead of "be" an
Annotation [v8]
In the annotation `@Foo(a=1)`, the left hand side `a` is an _element_
(as declared in the annotation interface Foo) and the right hand side
`1` is an _element value_ (per the first line of JLS 9.7.1).
Syntactically the `a` is an identifier but that's almost never relevant
what discussing element-value pairs. In the text you quoted, "an array
element of an array-valued element `value`" is the right way to say it.
Alex
On 8/2/2024 8:45 AM, Chen Liang wrote:
> One specification question for Alex: we call an annotation interface's
> element "element". What about the element-value pair that binds a value
> to an interface element in an annotation? Can we call this element-value
> pair an "element", or is there any other more proper name that is still
> concise? For context:
> > [This annotation] is an array element of an array-valued element
> named {@code value} in a container annotation
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* core-libs-dev <[email protected]> on behalf of Adam
> Sotona <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 2, 2024 8:55 AM
> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>;
> [email protected] <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: RFR: 8336754: Remodel TypeAnnotation to "has" instead of
> "be" an Annotation [v8]
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 00:04:48 GMT, Chen Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> `TypeAnnotation` is not an annotation, as it should not be used in places
>>> like `AnnotationValue.ofAnnotation`. Thus it's remodeled to contain an
>>> annotation at a given location instead of to be an annotation.
>>>
>>> Depends on #20205.
>>
>> Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 12 additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - remove compile, use element-value, break long sentences
>> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
>> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk> into
> fix/typeanno-model
>> - Improve docs for repeating, default, and value name
>> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
>> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk> into
> fix/typeanno-model
>> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk
>> <https://github.com/openjdk/jdk> into
> fix/typeanno-model
>> - More refinements from alex
>> - Artifact -> construct
>> - More about Annotation, add equals note
>> - Further refine wording
>> - Refine the spec of TypeAnnotation per Alex feedback
>> - ... and 2 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f3707e9b...3a91a3a5
> <https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/f3707e9b...3a91a3a5>
>
> Marked as reviewed by asotona (Reviewer).
>
> -------------
>
> PR Review:
> https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20247#pullrequestreview-2215642863
> <https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20247#pullrequestreview-2215642863>
