402236 – [1.8][spec] default methods in annotation types?

Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 402236 - [1.8][spec] default methods in annotation types?

Summary: [1.8][spec] default methods in annotation types?

Status:	RESOLVED NOT_ECLIPSE

Alias:	None

Product:	JDT
Classification:	Eclipse Project
Component:	Core (show other bugs)
Version:	4.3
Hardware:	All All

Importance:	P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone:	BETA J8
Assignee:	Srikanth Sankaran
QA Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:	401003
	Show dependency tree

Reported:	2013-03-03 07:31 EST by Stephan Herrmann
Modified:	2013-03-03 11:09 EST (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Stephan Herrmann

2013-03-03 07:31:10 EST

JSR335 0.6.2 sect. 9.6.1 has this grammar rule:

AnnotationTypeElementDeclaration:
  InterfaceMethodModifiersopt
            Type Identifier '(' ')' Dimsopt DefaultValueopt ';'
            
This would admit a default method, yet without a body.

Javac b74 happily accepts a default method *with* body in an annotation type.

Does the spec admit the modifier because semantic analysis will always detect an error regarding a missing method body?

Shouldn't the modifier already be prohibited on annotation members?

Comment 1 Srikanth Sankaran

2013-03-03 08:27:05 EST

Do you have a small test case that a lazy reader can copy/paste ?

Comment 2 Stephan Herrmann

2013-03-03 09:12:40 EST

(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you have a small test case that a lazy reader can copy/paste ?

Sure:

public @interface I {
    default String m1() { return "1"; } // syntactically illegal only (?) because of method body
    default String m2(); // syntactically correct (?) but semantically illegal because default method needs a body
}

Comment 3 Srikanth Sankaran

2013-03-03 11:04:41 EST

This rang a bell and I realized that I raised this with the spec
committee a few months ago: This is a javac bug and does not require any
action on eclipse side: See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=380194#c41,

Comment 4 Stephan Herrmann

2013-03-03 11:09:47 EST

Thanks, that bell should have rung for me, too :)