Re: [aspectj-dev] New intertype syntax ...new meaning?

[Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Currently, we just use a simple name filter for ajc$ proposals, but we
are using a more sophisticated approach to filter out ITDs on a type
that are not available in a particular context (eg- aspect-private
ITDs), and this could probably be applicable in the new situation as
well, but I'll have to think about it more.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I suspected AJDT may be removing them when it can, but on which of
> these does it base the decision to remove:
>
> - name
> - model
> - metadata
>
> if (1) it may need changing to (2) or (3) if I alter the naming
> scheme.  But we knew there would be an impact on AJDT if this mangling
> change goes ahead.
>
> Andy
>
> 2009/11/26 Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Andrew Eisenberg <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> This does mean that today any java projects consuming the
>>>> type may well see ajc$blahblah as a horrid code completion suggestion
>>>> if working with instances of that type - so in some respects, changing
>>>> it to properly private is a good thing to do anyway...)
>>>
>>> Small point here... AJDT filters out all of these kinds of proposals,
>>> so you you should never see them.
>>>
>> Let me rephrase that slightly...it is possible to see them if you are
>> consuming an aspect from another project in a non-AJ project.
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-dev mailing list
>> aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-dev mailing list
> aspectj-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-dev
>