RFR: CSR for Compiler implementation for records

[Alex Buckley]

I edited "Add records classes" to say "Add record classes". I also 
turned a "very low" into just a "low" in the Compatibility Risk 
Description; more could be written about which aspects of records are 
most likely to change due to feedback, but there are diminishing returns 
from spending on this CSR. Added myself as a reviewer.

Alex

On 11/4/2019 12:53 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Thanks for your comments, I have modified the CSR, does it look better now?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vicente
> 
> On 11/4/19 2:26 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
>> Usually, I want a CSR's Solution to break down the new language 
>> feature -- for example, see the original CSR for switch expressions 
>> JDK-8207241, where the Solution sketches the actual changes, not just 
>> "allow switch as an expression kthxbai". However, in the case of 
>> record classes, the Solution is legitimately self-contained -- support 
>> record classes! -- so no need for a break-down. That said, the phrase 
>> "for a fixed set of values" is confusing because it suggests enum-like 
>> behavior (the same phrase in the Summary is not confusing because it 
>> has a qualifier). Also "Add records classes".
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 11/3/2019 9:13 AM, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please review the draft of the CSR for Compiler implementation for 
>>> records at [1]
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vicente
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8233433
>