Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve the documentation of Receiver #3473

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 21, 2020

Conversation

mernst
Copy link
Member

@mernst mernst commented Jul 14, 2020

No description provided.

@@ -1140,7 +1140,8 @@
\item \refqualclass{checker/lock/qual}{Holding}
\end{itemize}

The set of permitted expressions is a subset of all Java expressions:
The set of permitted expressions is a subset of all Java expressions,
with a few extensions, notably \code{<self>} and formal parameters like \<\#1>.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same concern about <self> as above.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is important to include <self> here, because this section is about the Checker Framework Java expression syntax.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But it is only the Lock Checker that supports the <self> expression: https://github.com/typetools/checker-framework/blob/master/checker/src/main/java/org/checkerframework/checker/lock/LockVisitor.java#L78
So it seems rather confusing to include it like it is a generally supported expression.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added a qualifier to its description.


Additionally, it is not possible to write
quantification over all array components (e.g. to express that all
It is not possible to write a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aren't at least comparisons still forbidden? Or is this partially addressing #3474?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Binary operations are possible, so I'm not positive that comparisons are explicitly forbidden. Since part of the list became out of date, I removed it so that the rest does not get out of date.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, so let's leave it for #3474 to add proper restrictions again.

@wmdietl wmdietl assigned mernst and unassigned wmdietl Jul 17, 2020
@mernst mernst assigned wmdietl and unassigned mernst Jul 17, 2020

Additionally, it is not possible to write
quantification over all array components (e.g. to express that all
It is not possible to write a
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, so let's leave it for #3474 to add proper restrictions again.

@wmdietl wmdietl assigned mernst and unassigned wmdietl Jul 18, 2020
@mernst mernst assigned wmdietl and unassigned mernst Jul 20, 2020
@wmdietl wmdietl merged commit eafe915 into typetools:master Jul 21, 2020
@wmdietl wmdietl deleted the receiver-documentation branch July 21, 2020 23:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants