RE: [aspectj-users] within{static}initialization

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

RE: [aspectj-users] within{static}initialization - was Re: [aspectj-users] withincode(clinit)

From: Eric Bodden <eric@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:02:13 +0100
Delivered-to: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://dev.eclipse.org/pipermail/aspectj-users/>
List-help: <mailto:aspectj-users-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users>, <mailto:aspectj-users-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users>, <mailto:aspectj-users-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: RWTH Aachen University
Thread-index: AcTo05Dmj/8YtnncTi2vL2r1MU5dTgAE36Ug

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Russell Miles wrote:
> I've had the same question posed to me Ramnivas, with no really
> good answer coming immediately to me. 
It *might* be the case that if you had within for both, type
signaturs and method signatures, that this would lead to ambiguities
during parsing (reduce/reduce conflicts). Not sure, however.

Eric

- -- 
Eric Bodden
Chair I2 for Programming Languages and Program Analysis
RWTH Aachen University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQcqzxcwiFCm7RlWCEQLuvwCeLZEJFxtYsDO7fCn8aDtSoZr/IH4An0L4
J0/DPOuYonFLPzzQ9+yLYwOZ
=LQyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Re: [aspectj-users] within{static}initialization - was Re: [aspectj-users] withincode(clinit)
  - From: Russell Miles

Prev by Date: [aspectj-users] RE: Aspects fail if program interacts with user
Next by Date: Re: [aspectj-users] Aspect instance on JDK 1.5 annotation
Previous by thread: Re: [aspectj-users] within{static}initialization - was Re: [aspectj-users] withincode(clinit)
Next by thread: Re: [aspectj-users] within{static}initialization - was Re: [aspectj-users] withincode(clinit)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs