RFR: JDK-8236598: javac rejects record component with 'final' modifier

[Tagir Valeev]

Btw how about finality of compact constructor parameters? I assume that if
I declare the records component final and declare a compact constructor,
its formal parameters become final as well. Or not? If we disable 'final'
on records components, this means that compact constructor formal
parameters are never final?

Also, current spec draft says:

It can be seen that the production for *RecordComponent* is identical in
content to the production for *FormalParameter* (8.4.1
<https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se13/html/jls-8.html#jls-8.4.1>).

The following productions from 8.4.1
<https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se13/html/jls-8.html#jls-8.4.1>,
8.3 <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se13/html/jls-8.html#jls-8.3>
 and 4.3
<https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se13/html/jls-4.html#jls-4.3> are
shown here for convenience:

If you disable 'final', this part is no longer true.

With best regards,
Tagir Valeev.

вт, 7 янв. 2020 г., 9:08 Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>:

> My preference is to allow no modifiers on components at this time.  Since
> there are none that are actually useful, none seems like the right number.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jan 6, 2020, at 3:44 PM, Vicente Romero <vicente.romero at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1/2/20 3:17 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
> >> ----- Mail original -----
> >>> De: "Paul Sandoz" <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>
> >>> À: "Vicente Romero" <vicente.romero at oracle.com>
> >>> Cc: "compiler-dev" <compiler-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> >>> Envoyé: Jeudi 2 Janvier 2020 20:46:31
> >>> Objet: Re: RFR: JDK-8236598: javac rejects record component with
> 'final' modifier
> >>> If you allow redundant declaration of “final” would the same reasoning
> apply to
> >>> “private”?
> >>>
> >>> I notice the spec does not specify an optionally private modifier but
> does
> >>> declare that the associated implicit field is private.
> >>>
> >>> It feels inconsistent. Did you consider the opposite direction and
> change the
> >>> spec?
> >>>
> >>> Paul.
> >> Hi Paul,
> >> the keywords apply on the record components, not on the generated
> fields.
> >> Given a record component is always accessible if the class itself is
> accessible, "private" makes no sense in that case.
> >>
> >> And about allowing final or not ?
> >
> > I guess we should discuss tomorrow about this, allowing final or not,
> given that it is a redundant declaration that could bring some confusion it
> could make sense to do not allow it
> >
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >> Rémi
> >
> > Vicente
> >
> >>
> >>>> On Jan 2, 2020, at 10:41 AM, Vicente Romero <
> vicente.romero at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review a simple fix to a bug in the records code. Basically
> the spec
> >>>> allows record components to redundantly declare the `final` modifier.
> The
> >>>> current implementation is not allowing this. This patch is fixing
> this issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Vicente
> >>>>
> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8236598/webrev.00/
> >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8236598
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20200107/4010be51/attachment.htm>