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

[Vicente Romero]

Hi Bernard,

On 06/18/2018 09:44 AM, B. Blaser wrote:
> 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.

I would prefer get/set but it's just a personal opinion so your call, 
I'm OK with any

>
> What should we do?
> Bernard

Vicente

>
> 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
>>>>