Page History

...

Issue	Next responsible	Email thread
Receiver parameter name	EG, wmdietl	Receiver parameter name checks should not be based on Strings, but on semantics: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000796.html The EG needs to finalize the spec on what receiver parameter names are legal: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000103.html
Receiver parameter API	wmdietl	Provide nicer integration of receiver parameters: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000797.html
Method/Constructor distinction	EG	A proposed change needs to be decided: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000106.html
Interaction between Target and qualified names	wmdietl	Ensure recent discussion is implemented: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000113.html
JLS Creator production	EG, Mike	A production needs an update in the spec: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000121.html

Cleanup test case	Joel	http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000893.html

Aspects that should be tested more thoroughly by SQE:

target information for type annotations in anonymous classes and lambdas
bytecode offset for local variables, cast, instanceof, etc.
receiver parameter types and names
access to annotated types (expand test/tools/javac/processing/model/type/BasicAnnoTests.java)

Versions Compared