Rich Hickey wrote: > On Sep 16, 5:08 am, Jeroen Frijters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Attila Szegedi wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 2008, at 3:15 AM, Rich Hickey wrote: > > > > > > How is everyone handling the filtering of synthetic/bridge > methods? > > > > [...] > > > > > Most interesting, especially considering that bridge methods are > > > really only ever needed for parametric types, and there's not a > > > single type parameter in StringBuilder... > > > > I think that in this case the bridge is inserted because > AbstractStringBuilder isn't public. > > > > I'm still trying to figure out how to recognize these methods... On > (not very appealing) idea is to look at the target method that the > bridge is calling, if it has the same signature you can probably assume > that it is an "access" bridge (in contrast with a "variance" bridge). > > Do you mean by bytecode inspection? I guess that would mean a > resounding 'no' to: > > >>> Is there a reliable way to deduce the 'real' method set via > reflection?
I'm pretty sure at this point that this is the case (unfortunately). I've settled on using the bytecode inspection approach. BTW, thanks for pointing out this issue, I had missed it. Regards, Jeroen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to jvm-languages@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
