Paving the on-ramp

[Brian Goetz]

>     Indeed, I intend that there are no explicit constructors or
>     instance initializers here.  (There can't be constructors, because
>     the class is unnamed!)
>
>
> Hmm, I was under the impression I could drop all my `static`s while 
> keeping the class signature if I wanted? But, if I can and even then 
> explicit constrs and initers are banned, then indeed, at least one of 
> my drawbacks is invalid. I don't think it undercuts my overall case 
> that much.

Yes you can.  Example:

     class InstanceMain implements Serializable {
         public InstanceMain() { }

         public void main() { ... }
     }

and if you `java InstanceMain`, the launcher will do `new 
InstanceMain().main()`.

The two features -- no class header and instance main -- are 
orthogonal.  If you don't have a class header, you don't get explicit 
constructors.  If you use instance main, you must have a no-arg 
constructor, which could be supplied explicitlly (if there is a class 
header) or implicitly (whether or not there is a class header.)

>>
>>     One or more class annotations could appear below package/imports?
>
>     No package statement (unnamed classes live in the unnamed
>     package), but imports are OK.
>
>
> I'm confused; what does any of this have to do with package location? 
> Isn't that orthogonal to everything we're discussing?

There's a world where package is relevant here, but it seems pretty 
esoteric.  If you define a class with no name, the thing you want to do 
with it is launch it directly.  Seems like putting it in a package makes 
little sense here.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-spec-observers/attachments/20220929/1548b647/attachment.htm>