For further consideration...

[David Goodenough]

On Monday 30 March 2009, Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 March 2009, David Goodenough wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 24 March 2009, Joe Darcy wrote:
> >>> Greetings.
> >>>
> >>> In the first three weeks  of Project Coin over two dozen proposals have
> >>> been sent to the mailing list for evaluation. The proposals have ranged
> >>> the gamut from new kinds of expressions, to new statements forms, to
> >>> improved generics support.  Thanks to everyone who has sent in
> >>> interesting, thoughtful proposals and contributed to informative
> >>> discussions on the list!
> >>>
> >>> While there is a bit less than a week left in the call for proposals
> >>> period, there has been enough discussion on the list to winnow the
> >>> slate of proposals sent in so far to those that merit further
> >>> consideration for possible inclusion in the platform.
> >>>
> >>> First, Bruce Chapman's proposal to extend the scope of imports to
> >>> include package annotations will be implemented under JLS maintenance
> >>> so further action is unnecessary on this matter as part of Project
> >>> Coin. Second, since the JSR 294 expert group is discussing adding a
> >>> module level of accessibility to the language, the decision of whether
> >>> or not to include Adrian Kuhn's proposal of letting "package"
> >>> explicitly name the default accessibility level will be deferred to
> >>> that body.  Working with Alex, I reviewed the remaining proposals.  Sun
> >>> believes that the following proposals are small enough, have favorable
> >>> estimated reward to effort ratios, and advance the stated criteria of
> >>> making things programmers do everyday easier or supporting platform
> >>> changes in JDK 7:
> >>>
> >>>      * Strings in switch, Joe Darcy
> >>>      * Improved Exception Handling for Java, Neal Gafter
> >>>      * Automatic Resource Management, Josh Bloch
> >>>      * Improved Type Inference for Generic Instance Creation,
> >>>        Jeremy Manson
> >>>      * Elvis and Other Null-Safe Operators,
> >>>        Written by Neal Gafter and submitted by Stephen Colebourne
> >>>      * Simplified Varargs Method Invocation, Bob Lee
> >>>
> >>> As this is just an initial cut and the proposals are not yet in a form
> >>> suitable for direct inclusion in the JLS, work should continue to
> >>> refine these proposed specifications and preferably also to produce
> >>> prototype implementations to allow a more thorough evaluation of the
> >>> utility and scope of the changes.  The email list should focus on
> >>> improving the selected proposals and on getting any remaining new
> >>> proposals submitted; continued discussion of the other proposals is
> >>> discouraged.
> >>>
> >>> The final list of small language changes will be determined after the
> >>> call for proposals is over so proposals sent in this week are certainly
> >>> still in the running!  The final list will only have around five items
> >>> so it is possible not all the changes above will be on the eventual
> >>> final list.
> >>>
> >>> -Joe
> >>
> >> I realise that as you say the list is not final, but looking at the list
> >> of items my lightweight properties proposal is (at least to my eyes)
> >> considerably smaller than most of the provisional list.  It is smaller
> >> in respect to all of the changes to the language, the changes to the
> >> library and the changes to the compiler.
> >>
> >> I realise that anything mentioning properties is mired in history and
> >> that there seems to be a "do it all or don't touch it" approach to the
> >> problem which is a problem because the result is that it will not happen
> >> for (to be realistic) at least 5 years.
> >>
> >> I also realise that the proposal is perhaps not written with detail
> >> updates to the JLS etc, but I have never been involved in such things
> >> and would hesitate to try to write them up properly.  If this is needed
> >> then I am sure it can be done.  I am more than happy to work with anyone
> >> prepared to give constructive help.
> >>
> >> I would therefore be interested to know why my proposal is not being
> >> considered.  I believe I have shown need (BeanBindings, Criteria and
> >> PropertyChangeSupport uncheckable string literals for field names).
> >> It is also in the spirit of Java and one of great strengths
> >> (compiler/ide checkability).
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > It is a shame that no-one has seen fit to reply to this note.
>
> Especially since there has been no other recent traffic on the list to
> read or respond to!
>
> -Joe

I realise that there have been a lot of new proposals to consider, but
I am trying to understand what it is that needs to be improved in my
proposal in order to get it considered.   Without feedback that is very
difficult.  That is why I asked the questions about, and was dissapointed
not to get a reply.

David