diagnostics for non-applicable type annotations

[Werner Dietl]

Thanks for fixing this issue, Liam!

The revised diagnostic is much better and including a suggested fix makes
it even more useful.
Like Chris said, this has been a frequent confusion for people.

I had a look at the PR in January and it looks good to me.
There needs to be some discussion
<https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16592#discussion_r1444978083> about
whether to use "admissible" or "applicable", but that's a quick fix.

I'm not a "R"eviewer, but do hope that we can get this PR merged. Please
let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

Best,
cu, WMD.


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:09 PM Liam Miller-Cushon <cushon at google.com> wrote:

> Thanks Chris!
>
> Does anyone else have feedback on the proposal?
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:26 AM Chris Povirk <cpovirk at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Liam.
>>
>> We've found the current error messages to be a source of confusion: While
>> the average user doesn't use type-use annotations, those users who do use
>> them seem to hit this pretty frequently. We have our own FAQ entry about it
>> in our internal documentation, and I also refer people to the Checker
>> Framework's documentation
>> <https://checkerframework.org/manual/#common-problems-non-typechecking>,
>> which gives advice similar to that implemented by Liam's PR. I would expect
>> for that page and this Stack Overflow answer
>> <https://stackoverflow.com/a/21385939/28465> to get more traffic as
>> type-use annotations grow in popularity, as we're aiming for them to do as
>> part of our work on JSpecify nullness. The error-message changes could save
>> users a trip to those docs.
>>
>

-- 
https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~wdietl/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/compiler-dev/attachments/20240215/0ae1c534/attachment.htm>