Hi Mark. Do these set of changes mean those alternative proposals are now set in stone? I didn't know feedback was finished. For example, and I may have missed this, but I can't recall one message in support of the "requires static" syntax. As I said, I may have missed the supporters, but I don't recall anyone championing that exact syntax. Almost everyone objected to the use of "static" as a misleading use of the keyword.
On the other hand, if this is just a tentative change to move the feature set along, that makes more sense. I just want to understand the expectation. Thank you. Cheers, Paul On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:13 PM, <mark.reinh...@oracle.com> wrote: > FYI: > > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2016-July/008467.html > > - Mark >
