RFR: JDK14-8236005: local records shouldn't capture any non-static state from any enclosing type

[Vicente Romero]

On 1/13/20 9:46 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I've convinced myself that the code is 
> correct. Basically, if we're trying to access a local variable defined 
> in a method whose class is != than the current class && the current 
> class is also static (which can only happen with records, as that's 
> the only local construct which can also be static), an error should be 
> issued.
>

cool thanks,

> Maurizio
>

Vicente

> On 13/01/2020 13:39, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/10/20 8:02 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2020 22:53, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>>> but this code is accepted:
>>>>
>>>> class R {
>>>>      void m() {
>>>>          int z = 0;
>>>>          record RR(int x) { public int x() { return z; }};
>>>>      }
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Why is this accepted? Isn't capture of locals also disabled, as 
>>> demonstrated in the test:
>>>
>>> // Cant capture locals
>>> + assertFail("compiler.err.non-static.cant.be.ref",
>>> + "class R { \n" +
>>>                   "    void m(int y) { \n" +
>>>                   "        record RR(int x) { public int x() { return y; }};\n" +
>>>                   "    }\n" +
>>>                   "}");
>> sorry I should have been more specific. When I said: "with the 
>> current conditions" in my previous mail I should had said: "with 
>> current state without the patch this code is accepted" that's what I 
>> meant. Without the patch access to non-static fields from records are 
>> banned but access to local variables is not. This patch is closing 
>> that last gap
>>
>> Vicente

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20200113/5b8fd8d7/attachment.htm>