Bug 339226 - Document assumptions about DefaultBindingResolver.newAstToOldAst
Summary: Document assumptions about DefaultBindingResolver.newAstToOldAst
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.7   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 minor (vote)
Target Milestone: 3.7 M7   Edit
Assignee: Stephan Herrmann CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-03-08 09:37 EST by Stephan Herrmann CLA
Modified: 2011-04-27 01:34 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
proposed documentation (1.85 KB, patch)
2011-04-19 16:16 EDT, Stephan Herrmann CLA 		no flags Details | Diff
View All 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 CLA 2011-03-08 09:37:14 EST 
Fup of bug 337964:
While verifying said bug I was puzzled about this asymmetry
line 1525:
  type.isArrayType() implies (typeBinding instanceof ArrayBinding)
but line 1569:
  !type.isArrayType() does not imply !binding.isArrayType()

This is because methods like ASTConverter.completeRecord(..) associate
smaller DOM nodes (e.g., SimpleName "Object") with larger compiler nodes
(e.g., ArrayAllocationExpression "new Object[10]").

A code comment making such tacit knowledge explicit might help to draw the 
line between paranoia and required checks.
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2011-04-19 14:57:07 EDT 
Setting as 3.7RC1. This is not an emergency for M7.
Comment 2 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2011-04-19 16:16:42 EDT 
Created attachment 193619 [details]
proposed documentation

Right when you marked this as 3.7RC1 I was drafting a few comments,
capturing my current understanding :)
Comment 3 Stephan Herrmann CLA 2011-04-25 19:00:31 EDT 
Released for 3.7M7.
(no code change - just a small addition to code comments).
Comment 4 Olivier Thomann CLA 2011-04-26 10:14:19 EDT 
Will be verified once a build with v_B51 is available.
Comment 5 Srikanth Sankaran CLA 2011-04-27 01:34:29 EDT 
I verified this by code inspection, as all this involes is
a documentation change in a non-public class. There is no
user visible behavior associated with this bug.