Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

IssueNext responsibleEmail thread
Receiver parameter nameEG, 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 APIwmdietl

Provide nicer integration of receiver parameters:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000797.html

Method/Constructor distinctionEGA 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 nameswmdietl

Ensure recent discussion is implemented:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-spec-experts/2013-April/000113.html

JLS Creator productionEG, 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 caseJoel, Steve

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

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/type-annotations-dev/2013-April/000867.html

 

Aspects that should be tested more thoroughly by SQE:

...