For further consideration...

[Jeremy Manson]

Joe,

Is it all the Elvis operators, or just ?: ?

Jeremy

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> In the first three weeks  of Project Coin over two dozen proposals have
> been sent to the mailing list for evaluation. The proposals have ranged
> the gamut from new kinds of expressions, to new statements forms, to
> improved generics support.  Thanks to everyone who has sent in
> interesting, thoughtful proposals and contributed to informative
> discussions on the list!
>
> While there is a bit less than a week left in the call for proposals
> period, there has been enough discussion on the list to winnow the slate
> of proposals sent in so far to those that merit further consideration
> for possible inclusion in the platform.
>
> First, Bruce Chapman's proposal to extend the scope of imports to
> include package annotations will be implemented under JLS maintenance so
> further action is unnecessary on this matter as part of Project Coin.
> Second, since the JSR 294 expert group is discussing adding a module
> level of accessibility to the language, the decision of whether or not
> to include Adrian Kuhn's proposal of letting "package" explicitly name
> the default accessibility level will be deferred to that body.  Working
> with Alex, I reviewed the remaining proposals.  Sun believes that the
> following proposals are small enough, have favorable estimated reward to
> effort ratios, and advance the stated criteria of making things
> programmers do everyday easier or supporting platform changes in JDK 7:
>
>     * Strings in switch, Joe Darcy
>     * Improved Exception Handling for Java, Neal Gafter
>     * Automatic Resource Management, Josh Bloch
>     * Improved Type Inference for Generic Instance Creation,
>       Jeremy Manson
>     * Elvis and Other Null-Safe Operators,
>       Written by Neal Gafter and submitted by Stephen Colebourne
>     * Simplified Varargs Method Invocation, Bob Lee
>
> As this is just an initial cut and the proposals are not yet in a form
> suitable for direct inclusion in the JLS, work should continue to refine
> these proposed specifications and preferably also to produce prototype
> implementations to allow a more thorough evaluation of the utility and
> scope of the changes.  The email list should focus on improving the
> selected proposals and on getting any remaining new proposals submitted;
> continued discussion of the other proposals is discouraged.
>
> The final list of small language changes will be determined after the
> call for proposals is over so proposals sent in this week are certainly
> still in the running!  The final list will only have around five items
> so it is possible not all the changes above will be on the eventual
> final list.
>
> -Joe
>
>
>