> De: "John Rose" <[email protected]> > À: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]>, "Brian Goetz" <[email protected]>, > "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>, "joe darcy" > <[email protected]> > Envoyé: Mercredi 4 Décembre 2019 20:20:46 > Objet: Re: Clarifying record reflective support
> On Dec 4, 2019, at 7:59 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore < [ > mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] > > wrote: >> On 04/12/2019 15:53, [ mailto:[email protected] | [email protected] ] wrote: >>> Like getEnumConstants(), this is an argument i can agree upon. >> Yes, that is the important precedent here. > +1; getEnumX getRecordX are clearly partial functions (like getComponentType > als0), > while the others that always return non-null are clearly total functions. > I.e., get[Declared][Fields,Methods,Classes,…] apply evenly to all classes, not > just some kinds. okay, I'm convinced. Furthermore, I've taken a look to the code of my students have written for the lab that uses record last month, it's a small sample, 15 students, but all of them are using getRecordComponents() either after a call to isRecord() or after an instanceof java.lang.Record so i suppose, Maurizio is right that getRecordX implicitly means that the class has to be a record. Rémi
