RFR: JDK-8247849: permits clause of sealed interfaces should not allow parameterized types

[Jan Lahoda]

Looks good to me.

Jan

On 19. 06. 20 1:30, Vicente Romero wrote:
> what about [1]?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vicente
> 
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8247849/webrev.01/
> 
> On 6/18/20 4:04 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>> Hi Vicente,
>>
>> Overall looks good to me. My only comment for JavacParser is that 
>> maybe we could pass the string "class"/"interface" to the 
>> permitsClause method, instead of the boolean, although I do not feel 
>> strongly about that.
>>
>> In tests, in the second part that should verify that primitive types 
>> are not allowed, should there be the '#' markers instead of "Sub[]" in 
>> e.g.:
>> sealed class C<T> permits Sub[] {}
>> =>
>> sealed class C<T> permits # {}
>> ;;
>>
>> (Tests for arrays of primitive types might also be included, for good 
>> measure.)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> On 18. 06. 20 19:33, Vicente Romero wrote:
>>> Please review fix for [1] at [2]. I forgot to check that the 
>>> `permits` clause of interfaces can't list any parameterized type, 
>>> which is already done for classes. Now I have extracted the common 
>>> code for classes and interfaces, the one that takes care of the 
>>> `permits` clause, to avoid this kind of issues in the future,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vicente
>>>
>>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8247849
>>> [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vromero/8247849/webrev.00/
>