RFR: JDK-8193367: Annotated type variable bounds crash javac

[B. Blaser]

Honestly, I find 'TypeVar.getBound()' a bit heavy and not compliant
with the existing 'TypeVar.baseType()' naming.
But if everybody agrees with 'getBound()/setBound()' we can change it.

What should we do?
Bernard

On 18 June 2018 at 02:53, Vicente Romero <vicente.romero at oracle.com> wrote:
> bike shedding: shouldn't it be getBound / setBound instead of bound /
> setBound
>
> Vicente
>
>
> On 06/16/2018 08:13 AM, B. Blaser wrote:
>>
>> I've attached the nomenclature change you suggested.
>> I agree that 'setBound()' is more expressive.
>> Tier1 is still OK.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernard
>>
>> On 14 June 2018 at 19:03, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looks ok, I think I'd rather prefer setBound to bound(arg), as the name
>>> you
>>> chose doesn't make assignment explicit.
>>>
>>> Long term, I think we should find ways to avoid mutating the bound after
>>> creation... but I did some experimental work on this, and it's not a
>>> piece
>>> of cake, as you often need mutation when handling recursive bounds - e.g.
>>> set some initial bound first, then do a subst and set final bounds later
>>> (I
>>> think there's a bunch of methods in Types that use this idiom).
>>>
>>> Maurizio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/06/18 11:09, B. Blaser wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here it is, in attachment.
>>>> It completely privatizes and virtualizes 'TypeVar.bound'.
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for not providing a web-rev, this is still on my to-do list...
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback is welcome (tier1 is OK),
>>>> Bernard
>>>>
>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 20:42, B. Blaser <bsrbnd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I thought too but I wanted a confirmation before doing the
>>>>> whole job...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Bernard
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 June 2018 at 19:23, Maurizio Cimadamore
>>>>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this patch is a good start, but to be complete, we'd need to
>>>>>> completely virtualize access on the 'bound' field, otherwise we risk
>>>>>> turning
>>>>>> this into a whack-a-mole exercise. There are e.g. 30 usages in Types
>>>>>> alone,
>>>>>> each of those could lead to issues with type annos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maurizio
>>>
>>>
>