enhanced enums - back from the dead?

[Brian Goetz]

Thanks for the data!

Can you clarify: is 1 out of 55Kfiles for the "all raw type refs" 
option, or the "only for raw enum refs"?  It looks like you are saying 
the former?

On 12/10/2018 4:27 PM, Liam Miller-Cushon wrote:
> I did some corpus analysis for the following question from your doc:
>
>     There is a question on how broadly we want to affect typing rules
>     for raw types; one option is to alter the rules for all type
>     references; another, more conservative option, would be to use the
>     refined rules only for enum raw type references (on the basis that
>     generic enums and raw types will be frequently used together). The
>     latter path has the clear advantage of avoiding all kinds of
>     source compatibility issues, but it is more inconsistent -
>     refactoring a generic enum into a class might lead to surprises.
>
>
> I found roughly one breaking change per 55000 files.
>
> For context that's about four times as many as the fix that was 
> discussed recently for JDK-8207224. Less quantitatively, in the corpus 
> I looked at it is noticeable but wouldn't be very difficult to work 
> around, especially because there's usually a trivial 
> semantics-preserving fix of adding an explicit unchecked cast.
>
> (For the analysis I applied only the changes to Types from the 
> enhanced-enums branch, and commented out all of the `isEnum` checks.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20181210/afb442d2/attachment.html>