JSR 308 and implicit n-ary lambdas

Werner Dietl wdietl at gmail.com
Thu Nov 8 19:34:46 PST 2012 

Maurizio,

I merged in some changes from lambda/lambda and applied your patch.
This successfully disambiguates casts and lambdas and those errors are
gone (I need to adapt a few more test cases).

Thanks for your quick help!
cu, WMD.

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:33 AM, maurizio cimadamore
<maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 08-Nov-12 6:30 PM, Werner Dietl wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for this patch!
>
> Is it safe for me to pull in the whole lambda/langtools repository or should
> I just selectively merge the JavacParser?
>
> Better just to pull the parser alone.
>
> Maurizio
>
>
> cu, WMD.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch passes all the tests I could throw at it :-)
>>
>> As I said before, it is based on the JavacParser available in the lambda
>> branch; I believe now the differences between the lambda version and the JDK
>> 8 version are few enough that you shouldn't have problems merging those
>> changes in. In order to apply the patch you need first to update the parser
>> code to match what's available in the lambda repository.
>>
>> With the patch, the parser now should apply a disambiguaton logic that is
>> more 308-friendly (I hope!).
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>>
>> On 08/11/12 18:04, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I gave you the wrong pointer - the new parser is here:
>>
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/lambda/lambda/langtools/file/tip/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/parser/JavacParser.java
>>
>> [in the lambda repository]
>>
>> This  is slightly different (and more powerful) from the one in JDK8/TL.
>>
>> I have a patch based on this parser code that should be helpful - I'm
>> currently testing it to see if it doesn't break anything ;-)
>>
>> I will send you the patch once testing is complete.
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>> On 08/11/12 17:58, Werner Dietl wrote:
>>
>> Hi Maurizio,
>>
>> thanks for these clarifications!
>>
>> One idea that comes to my mind would be to use the new lambda parser code
>> and, in the disambiguation logic, add some code for essentially skipping
>> through an annotation. I.e. an annotation should not cause the parser to
>> take one route over another - but it certainly restricts the set of
>> possibilities: i.e. either it's an explicit lambda, or an annotated cast.
>> I
>> think that the new disambiguation code could work _provided_ that the
>> whole
>> annotation is skipped before speculatively consuming the next token.
>>
>> [1] -
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/file/tip/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/parser/JavacParser.java
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean with "new lambda parser code" and the
>> earlier " lambda-repository [1]". I merged with jdk8/tl/langtools, so
>> the parser in type-annotations should be based on the same code.
>> Should I pull from some other repository to get a newer parser? Will
>> this newer parser become the default in jdk8/jdk8?
>>
>> It would be great if you could spend some time in the type-annotations
>> repository and see whether you can disambiguate the grammar. I think
>> for you this should be a lot quicker than a day.
>> If not, a pointer to what functions to look at would be helpful.
>>
>>
>> Also, we are adding support for intersection types in cast i.e.
>>
>> Object = (A & B)obj;
>>
>> Which probably further complicates things.
>>
>> I assume we also want to be able to annotate each sub-type, as in:
>>
>> Object o = (@TA1 A & @TA2 B) obj;
>>
>> Are there any other locations in the grammar where MONKEY_AT is now
>> interpreted differently or where you think we might not have
>> considered type annotations yet?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> cu, WMD.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/12 10:14, Werner Dietl wrote:
>>
>> Lambda experts,
>>
>> the parser in file
>> langtools/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/parser/JavacParser.java
>> around line 968 contains the following:
>>
>>         case LPAREN:
>>             if (typeArgs == null && (mode & EXPR) != 0) {
>>                 if (peekToken(MONKEYS_AT) ||
>>                         peekToken(FINAL) ||
>>                         peekToken(RPAREN) ||
>>                         peekToken(IDENTIFIER, COMMA) ||
>>                         peekToken(IDENTIFIER, RPAREN, ARROW)) {
>>                     //implicit n-ary lambda
>>                     t = lambdaExpressionOrStatement(true,
>> peekToken(MONKEYS_AT) || peekToken(FINAL), pos);
>>                     break;
>>                 } else {
>>
>> this breaks in combination with type annotations on type casts.
>>
>> For an example failure, see this test case:
>>
>>
>> http://buffalo.cs.washington.edu:8080/job/type-annotations-langtools/61/testReport/com.sun.tools.javac.annotations.typeAnnotations.classfile/TypeCasts/tools_javac_annotations_typeAnnotations_classfile_TypeCasts_java/
>>
>> In the above code, is the MONKEYS_AT used with the assumption that any
>> annotation after a LPAREN must be a declaration annotation on a parameter
>> and therefore a lambda should start?
>>
>> Your assumption is correct - currently the only way an @ could occur
>> inside
>> a parenthesized expression is if a lambda parameter type was annotated; of
>> course I see this creates issues with type annotations. We could remove
>> that
>> assumption from the parser, however note that a sequence of two
>> identifiers
>> is also a trigger for an explicit lambda.
>>
>> Also you might want to look at the new parser code in the
>> lambda-repository
>> [1], which has an explicit disambiguation logic; perhaps it would be
>> easier
>> to make things work there by adding necessary rules for type annotations.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In the following code:
>>
>> String a0 = (@A String) o;
>>
>> instead of looking for just the MONKEYS_AT, I think we will have to parse
>> a
>> whole type and then see whether we hit an identifier (it's a lambda) or a
>> closing RPAREN (it's an annotated cast).
>>
>> Do you see a simpler way to disambiguate this? Am I misunderstanding
>> what's
>> happening here?
>>
>> One idea that comes to my mind would be to use the new lambda parser code
>> and, in the disambiguation logic, add some code for essentially skipping
>> through an annotation. I.e. an annotation should not cause the parser to
>> take one route over another - but it certainly restricts the set of
>> possibilities: i.e. either it's an explicit lambda, or an annotated cast.
>> I
>> think that the new disambiguation code could work _provided_ that the
>> whole
>> annotation is skipped before speculatively consuming the next token.
>>
>> Also, we are adding support for intersection types in cast i.e.
>>
>> Object = (A & B)obj;
>>
>> Which probably further complicates things.
>>
>> [1] -
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/langtools/file/tip/src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/parser/JavacParser.java
>>
>> Maurizio
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> cu, WMD.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl
>
>



-- 
http://www.google.com/profiles/wdietl

More information about the type-annotations-dev mailing list