Joe Bowbeer joe.bowbeer at
Sun Jun 30 08:06:22 PDT 2013

I'd say that Yes is too cute for a standard interface. No one static
imports *, and static imports in general are a gray area with lots of
leeway, so I can't object on either of those grounds. Yes just seems too
idiosyncratic for a standard interface.

That said, the maybe/definitely word play doesn't sit well with me either:
the "Definitely" annotation "may" be used...
On Jun 30, 2013 7:37 AM, "Brian Goetz" <brian.goetz at> wrote:

> Bikeshed opportunity: should the annotation be nested or at top level?
>> I think nested, but if so, it seems cruel to give it such a long name:
>> @MayHoldCloseableResource.**DefinitelyHoldsCloseableResour**ce
>> So the remaining bikeshed opportunity is what's shorter
>> but still crystal-clear? We probably can't get away with
>> just:
>> @MayHoldCloseableResource.Yes
>> Any ideas?
> The spectre of static imports really makes these decisions much harder.
>  In a world without static import, "Yes" is pretty close to the right
> answer.  But with the risk of doofii static-importing everything by default
> (do the default settings of Eclipse still nag you to do this?) @Yes will
> look stupid, which means that nested names should be designed with some
> expectation that they might be static imported.  Which is what brought me
> to the idea of non-nested here.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts mailing list