RFR: CSR for Compiler implementation for records

[Vicente Romero]

Thanks,
Vicente

On 11/4/19 4:59 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
> I edited "Add records classes" to say "Add record classes". I also 
> turned a "very low" into just a "low" in the Compatibility Risk 
> Description; more could be written about which aspects of records are 
> most likely to change due to feedback, but there are diminishing 
> returns from spending on this CSR. Added myself as a reviewer.
>
> Alex
>
> On 11/4/2019 12:53 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments, I have modified the CSR, does it look 
>> better now?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vicente
>>
>> On 11/4/19 2:26 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>>> Usually, I want a CSR's Solution to break down the new language 
>>> feature -- for example, see the original CSR for switch expressions 
>>> JDK-8207241, where the Solution sketches the actual changes, not 
>>> just "allow switch as an expression kthxbai". However, in the case 
>>> of record classes, the Solution is legitimately self-contained -- 
>>> support record classes! -- so no need for a break-down. That said, 
>>> the phrase "for a fixed set of values" is confusing because it 
>>> suggests enum-like behavior (the same phrase in the Summary is not 
>>> confusing because it has a qualifier). Also "Add records classes".
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On 11/3/2019 9:13 AM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Please review the draft of the CSR for Compiler implementation for 
>>>> records at [1]
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vicente
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233433
>>