Issue #8267: Implement full records support#8422
Merged
rnveach merged 1 commit intocheckstyle:masterfrom Jul 27, 2020
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
Contributor
Author
Possibly affected checks |
cf85009 to
d52227b
Compare
pbludov
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2020
Member
|
@nmancus1 please fix ACL for the regression reports. Some of them are inaccessible. |
esilkensen
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2020
Member
esilkensen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice, I think this worked out really well splitting it into two PR's
Member
|
Hi @rnveach, friendly ping for this PR - if it looks good to you, would be great to get it merged so @nmancus1 can have a clean base to build from for the follow-up PR's addressing the affects checks. |
d52227b to
d6ef3bc
Compare
nrmancuso
commented
Jul 26, 2020
Member
|
from JEP:
please create such input.
Please put in Input different(all possible) modifiers for CompactConstructorDeclaration. |
d6ef3bc to
98bc4c0
Compare
Contributor
Author
From JLS: The compact constructor must be declared public.
I'm not sure if you're referring to compact constructors, but if so: From JLS: It is a compile-time error if a record declaration contains more than one compact constructor declaration. |
Member
|
please fix indentation of they should not be indented, in separate commit of this PR or separate PR |
romani
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2020
rnveach
suggested changes
Jul 27, 2020
| * The {@code record} keyword. This element appears | ||
| * as part of a record declaration. | ||
| * | ||
| * @since 8.35 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
8.35 was just released so this needs to be upped to 36
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was added in 8.35 with the preliminary record support. Should I make this a separate PR or commit?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, didn't make the connection.
rnveach
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2020
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue #8267: Implement full records support
This PR will add full support for the Java 14 records syntax.
From JEP:
Java Grammar
RecordDeclaration:
{ClassModifier}
recordTypeIdentifier [TypeParameters]RecordHeader [SuperInterfaces] RecordBody
RecordHeader:
([RecordComponentList])RecordComponentList:
RecordComponent {
,RecordComponent}RecordComponent:
{Annotation} UnannType Identifier
VariableArityRecordComponent
VariableArityRecordComponent:
{Annotation} UnannType {Annotation}
...IdentifierRecordBody:
{{RecordBodyDeclaration}}RecordBodyDeclaration:
ClassBodyDeclaration
CompactConstructorDeclaration
CompactConstructorDeclaration:
{Annotation} {ConstructorModifier} SimpleTypeName ConstructorBody
Note that I've taken some liberties with the java grammar, in order to reuse existing code and reduce extraneous rules in the grammar file.
Reviewers, please note that the commits from #8293 are temporarily on this PR, since I built from them. Once #8293 is merged, I will rebase.