Thanks Andrew. Lots of emails flying around. I picked the wrong one. I do see he made it clear in another post. Thanks.
Cheers, Paul On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Andrew Dinn <ad...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > 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 >