Type annotations on scoping mechanisms and type/declaration annotation errors

[Werner Dietl]

Hi Alex,

> 1. CantAnnotateStaticClass is still OK and CantAnnotateStaticClass2 still
> makes me confused. Please see my question to you on
> type-annotations-spec-observers, after your response to Srikanth on Y.YY.Z.

Just replied.
I agree that the test case CASC2 is not the cleanest and would
appreciate somebody else independently testing the logic I
implemented.


> 2. CantAnnotateScoping.java looks good. FYI the @DA in "java. at DA
> lang.Object" is illegal because @DA is decorating part of a type in a type
> context, but DA is not applicable to type contexts.

Do you agree with the error messages I raise in these examples?
I also have a "java. at DA XXX.Object" test case and am not quite sure
how many error messages would be most helpful.
See the following test case:

langtools/test/tools/javac/annotations/typeAnnotations/failures/CantAnnotateScoping.java

fields f5 and f6.

Thanks,
cu, WMD.


> On 10/6/2013 6:24 PM, Werner Dietl wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I've just pushed the following three changesets to type-annotations:
>>
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/9a8d0fe3375e
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/d159031089b9
>>
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/type-annotations/type-annotations/langtools/rev/5f5ee58549bc
>>
>> I tried to address two issues:
>>
>> 1. errors on "scoping mechanisms" were inconsistent.
>>
>> 2. an annotation that is both a type and a declaration annotation is
>> legal, if it is legal under one interpretation (see this discussion:
>>
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-observers/2013-September/000194.html)
>>
>> Please have a look at the changed test cases and let me know what you
>> think.
>> More complete combo-tests would be great!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> cu, WMD.
>>
>



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