Summary: | [1.5] varargs in the Java model | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Eclipse Project] JDT | Reporter: | Martin Aeschlimann <martinae> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | JDT-Core-Inbox <jdt-core-inbox> |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | P3 | CC: | dirk_baeumer |
Version: | 3.0 | ||
Target Milestone: | 3.1 M3 | ||
Hardware: | PC | ||
OS: | Windows XP | ||
Whiteboard: |
Description
Martin Aeschlimann
2004-10-17 08:21:06 EDT
We are actually following the language spec which dictates this behavior. The varargs modifier is carried by the method itself. Dirk, your opinion? I like the solution chosen for the DOM AST. When you ask a IMethod for its parameter types, it should return what is found in the source and not how the compiler sees the thing. Then how would you represent the signature of a vararg parameter ? Beside, on signature front, you have to be prepared to the fact that AccVarargs is colliding with AccTransient (for fields), and do the adequate change if you don't want to see transient methods !? This is no different from what is occurring in the binaries, and is sticking close to the language spec spirit. The DOM AST doesn't need to harmonize with binaries. |