Annotation cycles (was: repeating annotations)

[Roel Spilker]

And while you're at it, we have another proposal ready to be pushed
allowing any annotation to be the result of an annotation method:

@interface A {
  Annotation value();
}

See  http://projectlombok.org/anyannotation/

The required changes to both specs and implementation are very small. All
the work has bene done already, albeit based on the jdk7 source. the only
things missing are a JEP, TCK and updating it to the current state of JDK8.

Roel

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Jesse Glick <jesse.glick at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 03/11/2012 06:19 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
>> two annotation types cannot be containers for each other because that
>> would create an illegal cyclic annotation type situation
>>
>
> So long as you are changing the language spec for annotations, why not fix
> this longstanding irritation too (#6264216), which arbitrarily prevents a
> rather wide range of use cases for annotations? For example, move the cycle
> check from declaration time to use time, so that the only rejected
> constructs would be genuinely nonterminating cycles that no one would ever
> intentionally write:
>
> @interface A {
>  B[] bs() default {@B};
> }
> @interface B {
>  A as() default {@A};
> }
> @A class X {} // oops
>
> but so that legitimate cases compile:
>
> @interface A {
>  B[] bs() default {};
> }
> @interface B {
>  A[] as() default {};
> }
> @A(@B(@A)) class X {} // fine
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20120417/4148d62a/attachment.html