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

[Vicente Romero]

;) sure, good catch

Vicente

On 1/14/20 5:49 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>
> 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/20200114/91175006/attachment.htm>