JEP 193: Enhanced Volatiles
jeroen at sumatra.nl
Wed Mar 5 16:55:54 UTC 2014
Brian Goetz wrote:
> I'm all for unintrusive. Though note that the intrusiveness metric on
> language features I(f) is not uniform across observers :)
> > Here's my straw man
> > proposal:
> > Add an annotation that can be placed on native methods to synthesize
> > atomic accessor methods.
> I suspect you were expecting this response: we don't add language
> semantics through annotations.
Technically, we're not adding language semantics. The JVM is the one interpreting the annotations. BTW, as I mentioned in another post in this thread, I specifically asked about this at the JVM Language Summit (in 2012 IIRC) and the answer was (by Alex IIRC) that there is no such rule.
> I'm not trying to frustrate you; evolving a language with millions of
> users is really, really hard. And one of the things that makes it hard
> is recognizing our intrinsic conflicts of interest between "what good
> will this do me" and "what harm will it do others."
I understand, that's why I want to avoid adding language support for this niche/specialist feature.
More information about the core-libs-dev