Request for review: proposal for @FunctionalInterface checking

[Joe Darcy]

Hello,

While there were some reservations expressed about this proposal, there 
were no strong objections so I'm going forward with adding this 
annotation type to the platform, with a somewhat refined specification.

Thanks,

-Joe

On 12/28/2012 1:38 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On 12/28/2012 12:28 PM, Sam Pullara wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com 
>> <mailto:joe.darcy at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>> has exactly one abstract method.  Since default methods are not 
>>> abstract, any default methods declared in an interface do not 
>>> contribute to its abstract method count.  If an interface declares a 
>>> method overriding one of the public methods of java.lang.Object, 
>>> that also does <em>not</em> count toward the abstract method count.
>>
>> This is pretty murky. This works:
>>
>> interface Foo {
>>   @Override
>>   boolean equals(Object other);
>> }
>>
>> but if you try this
>>
>> interface Foo {
>>   @Override
>>   default boolean equals(Object other) {
>>     return false;
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> it does give an error that says I can't override:
>>
>> *java: default method equals in interface spullara.Foo overrides a 
>> member of java.lang.Object*
>>
>> Seems like "override" is the wrong word to use and will likely be 
>> confusing since we are explicitly disallowing the second one.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I was contemplating whether "override" was the best phrasing to 
> use in the wording above because of this sort of wrinkle. Instead 
> "*abstract* method overriding one of the ..." might help distinguish 
> this particular case.
>
> -Joe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130108/3c50cd7a/attachment.html