Rethinking TypeAnnotation vs Annotation

[Eric McCorkle]

Alex,

I am talking in terms of javac compiler internals, not the JLS spec.  To
be clear, I'm proposing changes to the way we model data inside javac,
not any changes to the JLS.

At many stages in the pipeline, the applicability of an annotation is
not yet known.  So the annotation might potentially need a
TypeAnnotationPosition, because there is the potential that further down
the pipeline it will be discovered that it is actually a type annotation.

On 02/06/14 15:15, Alex Buckley wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> "Any given annotation is potentially a type annotation" doesn't smell
> right to me. For example, an annotation on a package declaration cannot
> reasonably be considered as a "type annotation".
> 
> In fact, we can be real precise about this: there are eight declaration
> contexts defined in JLS 9.6.4.1, and only five of them are called out in
> 9.7.4 as being a syntactic opportunity to annotate a type. The three
> that aren't - package declarations, type declarations, and type
> parameter declarations - are where you "cannot" have a type annotation,
> by definition.
> 
> It may be helpful to review 9.7.4:
> 
> - A declaration annotation is an annotation that applies to a
> declaration, and whose own type is applicable in the declaration context
> (§9.6.4.1) represented by that declaration.
> 
> - A type annotation is an annotation that applies to a type (or any part
> of a type), and whose own type is applicable in type contexts (§4.11).
> 
> - Whether an annotation applies to a declaration or to the type of the
> declared entity - and thus, whether the annotation is a declaration
> annotation or a type annotation - depends on the applicability of the
> annotation's type: ...
> 
> Alex
> 
> On 2/6/2014 11:59 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>> In the process of working on the next roadmap step for type annotations,
>> I've realized something.
>>
>> The current implementation, and I think most of everyone's thinking on
>> annotations treats type annotations as a special case of regular
>> annotations.  Indeed, this is sort of the intuitive first thought.
>>
>> But looking at the actual implementation details, I think the reverse is
>> actually true.  Any given annotation is potentially a type annotation,
>> especially earlier in the javac pipeline (where I'm presently generating
>> TypeAnnotationPositions in my new patch).  So, on the implementation
>> front, it makes perfect sense to do things like store
>> TypeAnnotationPositions in Attribute.Compound, as opposed to
>> Attribute.TypeCompound.
>>
>> I think this would also go a long way towards creating the single
>> codepath for attaching annotations that I want to create.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eric_mccorkle.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20140206/07dc4746/eric_mccorkle.vcf