2017/5/6 13:51:32 -0700, stephan.herrm...@berlin.de: > Mark, > > I am honestly glad that my role in all this is not at a management level, > but at the technical level, so I humbly refrain from answering your questions.
Understood. > Still, I feel qualified and obliged to add my share of transparency to > the discussion. If a spec is insufficient, I will call it insufficient. I would expect nothing less! > Alex knows that I'm doing so in deep appreciation of JLS. In many > discussions about differences between javac and ecj I defended the view > that "right" or "wrong" is not defined by any implementation, but only > by JLS. I completely agree. > I keep making a point that implementing ecj based on the > specification and nothing but the specification is the ultimate quality > assurance that could be applied to JLS. Your team's work on ecj over the years has definitely helped to improve the JLS. I really appreciate that, and I hope that the rest of the community does too. - Mark
