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

[Vicente Romero]

thanks for the review,
Vicente

On 6/22/20 10:19 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> 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/
>>