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

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Thanks!

Maurizio

On 14/01/2020 03:37, Vicente Romero wrote:
> I will add a test in the lines of:
>
> class Outer<T> {
>     void m() {
>         record R(T t) {}
>     }
> }
>
> to the patch
>
> Thanks,
> Vicente
>
> On 1/13/20 4:05 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>
>> Maybe too late but we might want to add a test for type-variables - 
>> e.g. accessing enclosing type-variables should equally be banned.
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>> On 13/01/2020 17:46, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/20200114/e67749f0/attachment.htm>