Bug 80066 - [1.5] local enum declarations
Summary: [1.5] local enum declarations
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 87818
Alias: None
Product: JDT
Classification: Eclipse Project
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.0   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: Olivier Thomann CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-12-02 17:31 EST by Jim des Rivieres CLA
Modified: 2005-03-17 09:53 EST (History)
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 Jim des Rivieres CLA 2004-12-02 17:31:11 EST 
Build 20041201:

The following legal J2SE5 program
public class Test {
	public static void main(String[] args) {
		enum Count {}
	}
}

compiles with the following error
Syntax error on token "enum", interface expected

There are 2 problems:
(1) the error message is misleading - "interface" is definitely *never* 
expected in a block

(2) local enum declarations appear to be legal. According to the grammar rules 
in JLS3 14.2, 

BlockStatement:
  LocalVariableDeclarationStatement
  ClassDeclaration
  Statement

and in 8.1,

ClassDeclaration:
  NormalClassDeclaration
  EnumDeclaration

I can't see any mention in the spec that they are illegal.

java_1_5.g is not currently handling this case.
Comment 1 Olivier Thomann CLA 2004-12-03 10:09:28 EST 
Jim, javac reports:
X.java:3: enum types must not be local
                enum Count {}
                ^
1 error
Comment 2 Olivier Thomann CLA 2004-12-03 10:15:48 EST 
Page 255, look at the discussion topic.
"This implies that it is impossible to define a local enum , or to define an
enum for an inner class.
So I would keep it as is for now.
Comment 3 Olivier Thomann CLA 2004-12-03 10:36:46 EST 
David,

Please add the same support than for invalid local interfaces. The code is
illegal, so this is not a priority, but adding the same support could allow us
to improve the error message.
Comment 4 Olivier Thomann CLA 2005-03-17 09:53:27 EST 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 87818 ***