Hi Ess,
On 01/06/2017 05:27 AM, Ess Kay wrote:
chances of meeting a module-info.class with funky module names is low
When I raised the initial question, I had no idea that the Java verifier
had been changed (with Java 6?) to allow "funky" package, class, field and
method names. Somehow that change passed right under the radar. Yes - a
possible option would be to simply ignore the broad character range allowed
by the JVM specification and trust that in practice no one would actually
use the usual characters in package, class, field, method or module names.
A downside to that option is that we will no longer be able to say to our
users that we fully support the JVM specification which in some cases can
be a problem. Anyway, I guess it is time to accept the overwhelming inertia
of the status quo and move on to the next problem.
If I remember correctly, there was a crazy proposal in the past to
specify a syntax for arbitrary symbol names in Java. It went roughly like:
@"the syntax of Java string in here"
So you could write code like:
public class @"What a wonderful world!" {
public static void @"Let's party..."() {
}
}
//
@"What a wonderful world!".@"Let's party..."();
You could adopt this in your tool, what do you think?
Regards, Peter
