Small language changes

[Mark Space]

Words in both C and Java are divided into keywords and identifiers.

(Roughly
The language defines the meaning of keywords, operators, punctuators,
separators, and so on;
the standard library defines the meaning of standard identifiers;
the programmer defines the meaning of other identifiers.

This is an interesting idea, but I think I must agree with Tom. Some of
those identifiers have meaning which is described in the JLS (and I
don't mean the examples or expanded discussion). Those identifiers are
part of the language. That they also appear in the API (library) is
merely support of and a requirement by the JLS.

In other words, when you use an identifier defined in both, you use a
language feature. The JLS is the point of origin, not the API. The API
is just following the JLS. The JLS is the root, in this case.

 

[Wojtek]

Lew wrote :

I get warnings about failing to use '@Override' for interface methods
in both Eclipse and NetBeans.

'@Override' already exists to show that interface methods are
overridden, so having another annotation to do the exact same thing
would be redundant.

Not here. I am using Eclipse 3.4. It allows @Override for
implemenation, but it is not required.

 

[Lew]

I get warnings about failing to use '@Override' for interface methods
in both Eclipse and NetBeans.

'@Override' already exists to show that interface methods are
overridden, so having another annotation to do the exact same thing
would be redundant.

[/QUOTE]

Not here. I am using Eclipse 3.4. It allows @Override for
implemenation, but it is not required.

'@SuppressWarnings' isn't required, either. Neither is
'@Deprecated'.

Even were it to be provided, I'd lay odds that '@Implements' would
never be mandatory. I also assess that it's a bad idea that it be
mandatory. What would make sense is that javac issue a warning for
the lack of '@Override', since the meaning is identical and the only
problem is enforcement.

 

[Wojtek]

Lew wrote :

Not here. I am using Eclipse 3.4. It allows @Override for
implemenation, but it is not required.

'@SuppressWarnings' isn't required, either. Neither is
'@Deprecated'.

Even were it to be provided, I'd lay odds that '@Implements' would
never be mandatory. I also assess that it's a bad idea that it be
mandatory. What would make sense is that javac issue a warning for
the lack of '@Override', since the meaning is identical and the only
problem is enforcement.[/QUOTE]

Bad symantics on my part.

Eclipse has a compiler setting where I can choose the error level of
various things like annotations. My @Override is set to warning, which
is what I would set a possible @Implements