Implicit 'this' return for void methods

Andrew Haley aph at
Wed Apr 2 11:05:50 UTC 2014

On 04/02/2014 11:58 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Hi,
> Am 02.04.2014 11:08, schrieb Andrew Haley:
>> On 04/01/2014 10:20 PM, Eirik Lygre wrote:
>>> What is the relationship between this "naked dot" proposal and the
>>> "chaining of void methods" proposal? The reason for asking is not to be
>>> negative, but rather to find out if these issues are best dealt with
>>> together, or as independent proposals.
>>> I think that if either of these are going to happen, then they must be
>>> specified with the appropriate level of isolation: That which belongs
>>> together must be processed together; that which belongs apart must be
>>> processed apart.
>> Point taken, but Project Coin (small language changes) worked well.
> If that would help to make things happen, I support the idea to separate both steps to different 
> proposals.

Here's how it works:

Start a project to do small language changes, or join an existing one.
Form an EG for the JSR.  It may be be that there is already a suitable
JSR in progress.

Discuss.  Make spec changes, make an implementation, make TCK changes.

Propose the change to the umbrella Java SE EG for inclusion in JDK N.

If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list