Parameter reflection without MethodParameters attribute

[Paul Benedict]

Eamonn, it's interesting. However, since Alex doesn't want a flag to
tell whether they were synthesized, the $ could provide a leak in that
information wall.

Paul

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Eamonn McManus <eamonn at mcmanus.net> wrote:
> Perhaps the synthesized names should have $ in them (e.g. arg$0 or $0), as
> is done for synthesized names elsewhere.
>
> Éamonn
>
>
>
> 2012/12/10 Alex Buckley <alex.buckley at oracle.com>
>
>> Thanks all for comments. We're going to proceed on the basis of the
>> current spec. (Executable.getParameters() always returns Parameter objects,
>> synthesizing them if necessary, and no flag method to tell whether they
>> were synthesized.)
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/2012 4:52 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/08/2012 02:19 AM, Joseph Darcy wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree; I think the API would be quite inconvenient to use if the
>>>> client had to test the result for null and then make up their own
>>>> parameter name.
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>>>
>>> for what it worth, I agree too.
>>>
>>> Rémi
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2012 5:11 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's slightly less value informationally to arg0, arg1 etc but
>>>>> it's still useful. I'd rather refer to arg0 than "the third int
>>>>> parameter". If I imagine I was looking at System.arrayCopy prototype
>>>>> I'd prefer to see arg0, etc than just the type names. Seeing the real
>>>>> names would, of course, be even better because methods like arrayCopy
>>>>> are inscrutable without knowing the parameter names. Just looking at
>>>>> the types doesn't tell you enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, synthesized flag yes, non-null name yes please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 7 2012, at 16:13 , Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Always returning Parameter objects seems like a good idea to me --
>>>>>> whether the information is available or not. However, if it's being
>>>>>> manufactured (as the parameter names are absent), I question the
>>>>>> utility of coming up with make-believe names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would opt to have a Parameter object have a null name and a flag
>>>>>> that says it's being synthesized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Alex Buckley
>>>>>> <alex.buckley at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/6/2012 5:32 PM, Joseph Darcy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alternatively, I think it is friendlier for the user for the
>>>>>>>> implementation of Executable.getParameters() to manufacture
>>>>>>>> placeholder
>>>>>>>> names if none are available, "arg0", "arg1", etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I concede that Executable.getParameters() can _always_ return somewhat
>>>>>>> useful results, namely Parameter objects which expose annotations (if
>>>>>>> present) and class/type info. Along with placeholder names/values,
>>>>>>> this is a
>>>>>>> good argument for always getting non-null Parameter values from
>>>>>>> getParameters().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the same time, a reflective client might want to know if the
>>>>>>> Parameter
>>>>>>> objects it's getting are made of placeholders or made from a real
>>>>>>> MethodParameters attribute. Executable.**hasEnhancedMetadata() is a
>>>>>>> possibility, but it goes toward "quality of service" (i.e. are names
>>>>>>> normative?) which is out of scope for SE 8.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So for now, let's always return Parameter objects and synthesize
>>>>>>> placeholders as you suggest. I've updated the spec (section 2.2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>