On 11/26/2018 01:44 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
// Adding compiler-dev since the parsing of files into compilation
units is not a Jigsaw issue.
On 11/20/2018 9:14 PM, Jayaprakash Artanareeswaran wrote:
"jigsaw-dev" <jigsaw-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net> wrote on 21/11/2018
01:56:42 AM:
> Jon points out that `OrdinaryCompilationUnit` will match an empty
stream
> of tokens (I dislike the syntax-driven optionality here, but it's
> longstanding) so the file D.java could be regarded as a
compilation unit
> with no package declaration, no import declarations, and no type
> declarations.
>
> Per JLS 7.4.2, such a compilation unit is in an unnamed package, and
> must be associated with an unnamed module.
>
> I would prefer 7.4.2 to say only that a compilation unit with no
package
> declarations _and at least one type declaration_ is in an unnamed
> package (and must be associated with an unnamed module; 7.3 should
> enumerate that possibility). A compilation unit with no package
> declarations _and no type declarations_ would be deemed
unobservable by
> 7.3, and all these questions about what to do with empty files would
> disappear.
That would be perfect and make things unambiguous. But for now, the
paragraph above is good enough for me.
Unfortunately, import declarations can have side effects (compile-time
errors) so to be sure that the "no package or type decl ===
unobservable" rule is suitable for a file containing just an import
decl, we would have to do a case analysis of how javac and ecj handle
the eight combinations of the three parts allowed in an ordinary
compilation unit. That's overkill for the situation involving empty
files that keeps coming up and that I really want to clarify. I don't
think anyone loves that an ordinary compilation unit matches the empty
stream, so let's define away that scenario. As Jon said, an empty file
doesn't present anything to be checked; there is no compilation unit
there, so let's be unambiguous about that.
We can rule out the empty stream in 7.3 with grammar or with
semantics. Usually a semantic description is clearest (gives everyone
the proper terminology and concepts) but in this case we don't want
the description to wrestle with "consists of one, two, or three parts"
when the grammar allows zero. So, a new grammatical description is
appropriate, and straightforward:
OrdinaryCompilationUnit:
PackageDeclaration {ImportDeclaration} {TypeDeclaration}
ImportDeclaration {ImportDeclaration} {TypeDeclaration}
TypeDeclaration {TypeDeclaration}
The "three parts, each of which is optional" description is still
accurate. The package decl part is optional (as long as you have the
import decls part and/or the type decls part); the import decls part
is optional (as long as you have either the package decl part or ...)
... you get the picture.
I would leave 7.4.2 alone; an ordinary compilation unit with no
package or type decls but with import decls is part of the unnamed
package (and thus unnamed module) as before, and compilers can handle
that, I think.
Any comments?
Alex
That seems good to me.
To summarize the javac behavior ...
* javac accepts/ignores an empty file
* javac treats import-only compilation units as in the unnamed
package, which is not allowed in a named module
* javac enforces file naming constraints when declaring a public class
* javac uses file naming constraints when looking on the (module)
source path for a file for a class
Attached is a toy class to generate combinations of package, import and
type declarations. You can use the source-launcher feature to run it.
-- Jon
