On 07/07/16 15:52, Paul Benedict wrote:
> 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.
I though Alan's note made this clear
"The jigsaw/jake forest has been updated with an initial implementation
of the proposals that Mark brought to the jpms-spec-experts mailing list
last week.
...
The discussion on some of these issues is ongoing so don't treat
anything as final yet. We'll refresh the builds as needed over the
coming weeks."
I believe the idea is to allow people to try out the proposals to see
how (and how well) they work. I'm certainly glad of the chance to
ascertain whether #ReflectiveAccessByInstrumentationAgents is up to
scratch or not.
regards,
Andrew Dinn
-----------
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd
Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Directors: Michael Cunningham, Michael ("Mike") O'Neill, Eric Shander
