Implicit 'this' return for void methods

Andrew Haley aph at
Wed Apr 2 14:32:55 UTC 2014

On 04/02/2014 12:05 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> 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.

As Patrick Wright has pointed out, this would be a JEP.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list