----- Mail original -----
> De: "John Rose" <[email protected]>
> À: "Maurizio Cimadamore" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 18 Novembre 2020 09:07:18
> Objet: Re: [statics] allowing static initializers in interfaces?
> +1 from me too, and generally to heal the rift.
> The inability to put private classes (and other “stuff”)
> in an interface makes it hard to support canonical
> algorithms in default methods, if they need auxiliary
> types.
yes,
another example, in the patch introducing the new random generator API
currently under review, there is this method
default float nextFloat() {
return (nextInt() >>> 8) * 0x1.0p-24f;
}
which a good example of why we also need private static final fields in
interface.
Rémi
>
>> On Nov 17, 2020, at 6:03 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> now that the work on allowing static members in nested declarations [1] is
>> wrapping up, I'm wondering if we could add treatment for one more case:
>> static
>> initializers in interfaces. This seems a case where the static compiler is
>> already inserting static blocks (to initialize any static fields an interface
>> might declare), but where the JLS is currently forbidding interfaces from
>> having an explicit static initializer block in the source code. This make
>> e.g.
>> initialization of fields which might throw exceptions (e.g. method handles)
>> not
>> possible inside interfaces. While I realize this is a corner case, I thought
>> it
>> would still be worth asking the question :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Maurizio
>>
>> [1] - https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/571
