<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/06/2024 16:57, Archie Cobbs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CANSoFxsiTPC1wPHSnr5yL-dXmXnUqSQgCcPAh4Mtw0QxOMnJAA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:35 AM Maurizio
Cimadamore <<a href="mailto:maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">maurizio.cimadamore@oracle.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>I think so. At times we have made other source
incompatible changes (esp. in the context of type
inference in Java 8) with the goal of putting the language
on a firmer ground.
<p>So far the evidence is that this code idiom is
basically non-existent in the wild, and there's
workarounds. So that, alone, wouldn't constitute a great
argument IMHO.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>OK - we can have different predictions on how it might
play out.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My guess is colored by previous experience. For example,
my fix for JDK-8294461 ("wrong effectively final
determination by javac") got reverted because of backward
incompatibility in compiler behavior, and this change in
behavior was arguably even more obscure in terms of "code in
the wild" affected and it was certainly more justified from
a spec point of view because it wasn't changing the spec, it
was fixing the compiler to correctly follow the spec (!)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The issue you
mention was backed out as part of this:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8299416">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8299416</a></p>
<p>Which has a very long discussion, mentioning the need of
supporting JLS text:</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8299861">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8299861</a></p>
<p>In other words, as sometimes happens, following JLS to the letter
can reveal other cases where perhaps JLS was underspecified, and
in those cases it's ok (even desirable) to take a step back to see
what needs to be aligned with what.</p>
<p>Maurizio<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>