Type annotations clarification

[Werner Dietl]

I think @C and @D need to have the same type path as @A and @B.
In the compiled bytecode, the signature for both fields is the same.
The output of javap for the example looks correct to me:

Outer$Inner<java.lang.Integer> f1;
  descriptor: LOuter$Inner;
  flags:
  Signature: #10              // LOuter$Inner<Ljava/lang/Integer;>;
  RuntimeInvisibleTypeAnnotations:
    0: #12(): FIELD, location=[INNER_TYPE]
    1: #13(): FIELD, location=[INNER_TYPE, TYPE_ARGUMENT(0)]

Outer$Inner<java.lang.String> f2;
  descriptor: LOuter$Inner;
  flags:
  Signature: #15              // LOuter$Inner<Ljava/lang/String;>;
  RuntimeInvisibleTypeAnnotations:
    0: #16(): FIELD, location=[INNER_TYPE, TYPE_ARGUMENT(0)]
    1: #17(): FIELD, location=[INNER_TYPE]

If @C and @D used a different type path, the type annotations couldn't
be correctly matched.

cu, WMD.


On 02/24/2014 03:53 PM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> I need a brief clarification on what the type path should look like for
> some type annotations.
> 
> In the following example:
> 
> 
> class Outer {
> 
>   class Inner<T> {}
> 
>   Outer. at A Inner<@B Integer> f1;
> 
>   @C Inner<@D String> f2;
> 
> }
> 
> 
> The type paths for @A and @B look like this:
> 
> @A: [INNER_TYPE]
> @B: [INNER_TYPE, TYPE_ARGUMENT(0)]
> 
> The question is, what about @C and @D, which are on an unqualified
> reference to Inner?  Should they be the same as for @A and @B, or should
> they look like this:
> 
> @C: []
> @D: [TYPE_ARGUMENT(0)]
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
>