Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> On Sep 16, 5:17 am, Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Ok if you say so. However I have never heard Gafter nor Bloch air the
>> idea of such conversion techniques and breaking source code
>> compatibility,
>>     
> That's -exactly- my point. There's no willingness to introduce
> features that fundamentally change the way java source is to be read,
> at sun. We can chat about using a source keyword, or using context
> sensitive keywords, but that's moot unless there's a perceived need.
>
> Thus, your argument that context sensitive keywords is somehow better
> because it might behoove sun more, seems strange.
>
> None of that changes the fact that context sensitive keywords aren't a
> panacea - having a blank slate, granted by a source keyword, is
> infinitely more flexible. It also doesn't change the fact that, with a
> source keyword, java source parsers can just be better, period.
>   
This is also infinitely better than having to separate all your source 
out into multiple javac invocations each with their own -source option.  
What if there's a circular dependency between a class where you want 
with de facto 1.3 source compatibility (e.g. it uses "assert" in ways 
that won't work with 1.4 and higher) and another that requires Java 5 
features?  Sure you can update the 1.3 source, but you /should/ be able 
to just update 1 of the sources in such a circular dependency to a 
different source level and hit everything in one javac invocation.

Having the -source option for javac would then just provide the source 
level for the sources that are /not/ annotated with the source keyword.

--
Jess Holle


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to