modifiers of default methods

[Joe Darcy]

On 10/4/2012 5:10 PM, David Holmes wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 11:34 AM, Stephan Herrmann wrote:
>> Using jdk1.8.0-lambda-8-b56 I can compile the following
>>
>> public interface I {
>> 	strictfp synchronized void foo() default {}
>> }
> Interesting. I hadn't thought about this aspect of default methods. I
> can easily imagine people interpreting the above as meaning that the
> foo() method must always be synchronized and strictfp. And while
> synchronized is an implementation detail, strictfp could be seen as
> being part of the specification ...

The strictfp bit is an implementation detail, very similar to 
synchronized.  Just as the specification counterpart of "synchronized" 
is something like "thread-safe" the specification counterpart of 
"strictfp" would be "exactly specified numerical behavior."

-Joe

>
> David
> -----
>
>> public class C implements I {
>> 	public static void main (String[] args) {
>> 		System.out.println("Hi");
>> 	}
>> }
>>
>> but any attempt to run the resulting class files gives:
>>
>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ClassFormatError: Method foo in
>> class I has illegal modifiers: 0x821
>>
>> Does the VM require bit AccDefaultMethod to be set (I haven't yet
>> seen a specification of that flag), or is the VM simply not updated
>> to accept the newly legal combination of modifiers?
>>
>> best,
>> Stephan
>>
>>