> On Mar 7, 2018, at 7:48 AM, Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
>> This might not pan out, and if so we can drop the error check and return to 
>> where we were.
>> But it seems promising, and we don't want to get stuck in 11 making 
>> compatibility promises
>> about the interpretation of things like 'bootstrap(Object... args)'.
> I think it's too late for that, once we had said that the bsm is called with 
> methodhandle.invoke (or more recently invokeWithArguments), 
> bootstrap(Object... args) is already a valid construct. 

The proposed rule detects a CONSTANT_Dynamic bootstrap of this form and rejects 
it, because the first parameter's type is not Lookup. This is an explicit 
check, not a side-effect of invokeWithArguments.

In a plausible future (one that we want to make space for), rather than 
reporting an error, CONSTANT_Dynamic resolution will notice the lack of Lookup 
as a first parameter, and so pass an argument array to invokeWithArguments that 
doesn't contain the Lookup, name, or type.


Reply via email to