Hi Tagir,
Upon reflection I think it’s best that we don’t treat this as a compile-time
error, but just as the specified behaviour. The warning vs error thing is a
grey area, especially in Java, but having bounced this around it seems like it
has fallen (just) in the warning side of the divide. As you say, this is a
great opportunity for IDEs to be helpful :-)
Just to be clear:
@Target(ElementType.METHOD)
@interface A { }
record R1(@A int x) { // Where did the annotation go?
int x() { return x; }
}
In this example, what I am proposing is that there is no compile-time error and
the A annotation will simply not be propagated anywhere. [I am expecting that
most developers in this case would have added the RECORD_COMPONENT target, so
the annotation does not disappear completely.]
Thanks,
Gavin
> On 5 Oct 2020, at 05:47, Tagir Valeev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:09 AM Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we're reaching diminishing returns here.
>
> Well, to me, it's not diminishing. It's certainly a piece of code that
> will not have any effect after compilation, so it's a mistake.
> Reporting it is not that hard. Having a class/runtime annotation in
> source code that disappears completely in the compiled class-file
> without any warning sounds confusing and may cause subtle problems.
> Well, of course, we can create an inspection in IntelliJ IDEA to warn
> about these cases, and people will like IntelliJ IDEA even more, but I
> believe it's a compiler job to reject this, like Java already does
> with e.g. unreachable code.
>
> With best regards,
> Tagir Valeev.
