>
> My initial reaction was that, no, we really do want IdentityObject here,
> because it's useful to be able to assign an abstract class type to
> IdentityObject.
>
> But: for new classes, the compiler will have an opportunity to be explicit.
> It's mostly a question of how we handle legacy cla
TLDR: I'm convinced, let's revise our approach so that the JVM never infers
interfaces for abstract classes.
On Feb 24, 2022, at 8:57 AM, Dan Heidinga
mailto:heidi...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Whether
they can be instantiated is a decision better left to other parts of
the spec (in this case, I belie
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:36 PM Dan Smith wrote:
>
> Fred suggested that we enumerate the whole space here. So, some cases to
> consider:
>
> { ACC_PERMITS_VALUE, not }
> { has an declaration, not }
> { implements IdentityObject, not }
> { implements ValueObject, not }
>
> "implements" here refe
Fred suggested that we enumerate the whole space here. So, some cases to
consider:
{ ACC_PERMITS_VALUE, not }
{ has an declaration, not }
{ implements IdentityObject, not }
{ implements ValueObject, not }
"implements" here refers to both direct and indirect superinterfaces.
I'll focus on the f
> On Feb 14, 2022, at 7:23 AM, Frederic Parain
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/13/22 1:05 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Srikanth Adayapalam
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand Frederic is asking about whether the spec inadvertently
>>> allows something it should not - Here anyway
On 2/13/22 1:05 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
On Feb 12, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Srikanth Adayapalam
wrote:
I understand Frederic is asking about whether the spec inadvertently allows
something it should not - Here anyway is javac behavior:
Given:
abstract class A implements ValueObject {
int x;
> On Feb 12, 2022, at 10:16 PM, Srikanth Adayapalam
> wrote:
>
> I understand Frederic is asking about whether the spec inadvertently allows
> something it should not - Here anyway is javac behavior:
>
> Given:
>
> abstract class A implements ValueObject {
> int x;
> }
>
> on compile:
>
with fields implementing ValueObject
> On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:50 PM, Frederic Parain
> wrote:
>
> There's a weird case that seems to be allowed by the Value Objects JVMS draft:
>
> An abstract class can declare non-static fields, which means it won't
> have the ACC_P
> On Feb 9, 2022, at 2:50 PM, Frederic Parain
> wrote:
>
> There's a weird case that seems to be allowed by the Value Objects JVMS draft:
>
> An abstract class can declare non-static fields, which means it won't
> have the ACC_PERMITS_VALUE flag set, but also declare that it implements
> the Va
- Original Message -
> From: "John Rose"
> To: "Frederic Parain"
> Cc: "valhalla-spec-experts"
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 12:02:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Abstract class with fields implementing ValueObject
> That could be one of ve
That could be one of very many edge conditions in the JVMS that are not
diagnosed directly by a validation, but that will eventually cause an error
when the broken classfile is further used.
I don’t think there needs to be a special rule for this. We don’t try to
comprehensively diagnose all “
11 matches
Mail list logo
