JDK 14 RFR of JDK-8233096: Update javax.lang.model for switch expressions

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Hi Joe,

Understood. While I think there could be some improvement in the 
wording, I accept such a discussion does not belong in this review thread.

-- Jon


On 11/12/2019 08:13 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> On 11/12/2019 5:30 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>
>> I've reviewed the specific proposed update.
>>
>> As a picky comment on the CSR, the line wrapping before the version 
>> number seems inconsistently gratuitous.
>>
>> More notably, the general use of "include", as in "Additions in this 
>> release include ..." seems lazy and less than definitive.
>>
> The wording isn't entirely motivated by laziness ;-) There have been 
> times in the past when the listing in SourceVersion.RELEASE_N was not 
> updated at the same time a new feature went in. The less-precise 
> wording is still truthful in an incomplete state. Also, there have 
> been language changes smaller than the granularity of getting a named 
> feature/JEP. Such changes are conditional on source version and the 
> "additions include" allows for the existence of such changes without 
> risking the false conclusions that there were no other language changes.
>
> HTH,
>
> -Joe
>
>
>> -- Jon
>>
>>
>> On 11/12/19 3:37 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>
>>> Coming back to this after the switch expression changes were pushed, 
>>> I've updated the test to give a more informative output message on 
>>> an error:
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8233096.1/
>>>
>>> and for completeness, a created an extra small CSR as well:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8234055
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 11:28 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2019 10:09 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although not modified, is this line in the test as intended?
>>>>>
>>>>> 137             throw new RuntimeException("Unexpected " + message +  "-ness of _ on " + version);
>>>>> The reference to "_" seems unexpected.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah; I noticed that too. It would clearly be more informative to 
>>>> print out the input causing the failure. Code review feedback could 
>>>> overcome my activation energy to do the small necessary refactoring 
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Jon
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/29/19 9:58 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After switch expressions are added as a full non-preview feature 
>>>>>> (JDK-8232684), portions of javax.lang.model should be updated 
>>>>>> accordingly, including the description of SourceVersion.RELEASE_14.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please review the changes for this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8233096.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20191113/a7fbb9a5/attachment.html>