<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Does anyone on the compiler team have thoughts on this? I'd welcome any feedback.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 6:59 AM Werner Dietl <<a href="mailto:wdietl@gmail.com" target="_blank">wdietl@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks for fixing this issue, Liam!<div><br></div><div>The revised diagnostic is much better and including a suggested fix makes it even more useful.</div><div>Like Chris said, this has been a frequent confusion for people.</div><div><br></div><div>I had a look at the PR in January and it looks good to me.</div><div>There needs to be <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/16592#discussion_r1444978083" target="_blank">some discussion</a> about whether to use "admissible" or "applicable", but that's a quick fix.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>cu, WMD.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:09 PM Liam Miller-Cushon <<a href="mailto:cushon@google.com" target="_blank">cushon@google.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Thanks Chris!<div><br></div><div>Does anyone else have feedback on the proposal?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 8:26 AM Chris Povirk <<a href="mailto:cpovirk@google.com" target="_blank">cpovirk@google.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Thanks, Liam.<div><br></div><div>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 <a href="https://checkerframework.org/manual/#common-problems-non-typechecking" target="_blank">the Checker Framework's documentation</a>, which gives advice similar to that implemented by Liam's PR. I would expect for that page and <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/21385939/28465" target="_blank">this Stack Overflow answer</a> 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.</div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><a href="https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~wdietl/" target="_blank">https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~wdietl/</a></div>
</blockquote></div>