PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals (original) (raw)
Bruce Chapman brucechapman at paradise.net.nz
Wed Mar 11 00:07:23 PDT 2009
- Previous message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Next message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rémi Forax wrote:
The major pain point of this proposal is, in my opinion, to have a concensus on the type of field#fieldame and type#methodName().
The proposal uses java.lang.reflect.Field and java.lang.reflect.Method, I would prefer java.lang.reflect.Property and java.dyn.MethodHandle. (with java.lang.reflect.Property a pair of method handles (getter/setter)). Rémi But if the runtime type of type#name was a Property consisting of 2 MethodHandles then it is no longer a field literal is it? There would be no way to represent an actual field. And if you try to model a property, is the compiler going to attempt to find a BeanInfo and determine the getter setter method for the named property that way, or just take some shortcuts? If it does ask the BeanInfo (as it should) how will it do that if the BeanInfo exists only in source form (until the current compilation completes)?
Bruce
- Previous message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Next message: PROPOSAL: Method and Field Literals
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]