Loosening requirements for super() invocation

[Vicente Romero]

Hi,

On 1/5/23 14:59, Archie Cobbs wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 1:22 PM Vicente Romero 
> <vicente.romero at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
>     On 1/5/23 14:20, Archie Cobbs wrote:
>>     On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 1:06 PM Vicente Romero
>>     <vicente.romero at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>         yep I've been reviewing other PRs you have been working on,
>>         this one is
>>         also in my list,
>>
>>
>>     Just to be clear, there aren't PR's filed yet for the 'this'
>>     escape work, or for the related work allowing code before
>>     super(). Just let me know if/when I should do that.
>
>     I saw a fork with some related code but feel free to condense the
>     work in a formal PR
>
>
> OK great - thanks.
>
> For the 'this' escape, it looks like the following JDK bugs would be 
> fixed, so I'll plan to file the PR under one of these:
>
> JDK-8015831 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8015831>
> JDK-6557145 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6557145>
>
> FWIW, the following bugs are related, but not (necessarily) fixed:
>
> JDK-6563146 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-6563146>
> JDK-8091094 <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8091094>
>
> For the code before super() work (JDK-8194743 
> <https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8194743>), is it OK to file a PR 
> before there is a JEP?

it could be done either way but I think that going for the JEP first is 
usually a better approach

>
> -Archie
>
> -- 
> Archie L. Cobbs

Vicente
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20230111/ceff62c8/attachment.htm>