Loosening requirements for super() invocation

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at oracle.com
Thu Jan 17 14:42:02 UTC 2019

Some things have improved for this feature since we last talked; several verifier issues that this would have pushed on have been resolved.  So it’s moved from the “way too expensive for the benefit” category into the “there are lots of things we can do, is this really what we want to spend our effort and complexity budget on” category.  

My view on this is that while there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s also a pretty minor wart.  If this fell out of a bigger feature, I’d certainly not object, but I’d rather spend the effort and complexity budget on things that have broader benefit.

> On Jan 16, 2019, at 5:48 PM, Archie Cobbs <archie.cobbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm curious what are people's current thoughts on loosening the
> requirements for super() invocation in the context of Amber, e.g.:
>    public class MyInputStream extends FilterInputStream {
>        public MyInputStream(InputStream in) {
>            if (in == null)
>                throw new IllegalArgumentException("null input");
>            super(in);      // look ma!
>        }
>    }
> For a brief summary of the history see the "DIGRESSION" in this post from
> last year:
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/2018-March/000320.html
> This is an old "TODO" item that was never addressed due to cost/benefit
> concerns.
> Is it time to revisit?
> -Archie
> -- 
> Archie L. Cobbs

More information about the amber-dev mailing list