28 Apr
2017
28 Apr
'17
9:19 p.m.
On 28 Apr 2017, at 14:10, joe darcy <joe.darcy@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello,
As this is a binary incompatible change, effectively removing a public constructor, I'd prefer if this change got into JDK 9 instead, pending the review process of course.
Fair point, the earlier the better in that regard.
(I've thought it would be worthwhile to audit the JDK for default constructors and/or add a javac lint warning for that situation, but I haven't done that, yet.)
If we used something like error prone (perhaps with integration into javac) i presume this would be rather easy to do. Paul.