Interaction between @Target meta-annotations and fully-qualified types

[Alex Buckley]

On 4/22/2013 1:50 PM, Michael Ernst wrote:
>> I note that a method whose result is 'void' (and hence has no return
>> type)
>> cannot allow a solely-TYPE_USE annotation where a METHOD annotation
>> previously stood.
>
> Right.  This example already appeared in the specification, so it's not
> a change nor even a clarification.  As we have previously discussed, you
> would never expect to change (say) a METHOD annotation to a FIELD
> annotation and write it in the same places, so we wouldn't expect to
> make other @Target changes either.
>
>> This is an argument against partitioning type annotations
>> and declaration annotations.
>
> I don't see this argument.  The spec notes that it is bad style to have
> a single annotation that is both a type annotation and a declaration
> annotation.

I mean in terms of making it an error if an annotation type targets both 
TYPE_USE and a declaration location. We agree such an annotation type is 
unusual and temporary (which in Java time means "about five years") but 
we also agree it should be legal.

Alex