Re: JSR311: Issue 44: Optional values for _at_*Param

From: Stephan Koops <>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:33:41 +0200

Hi Paul,
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
>> So far I've seen one positive response to this suggestion. Personally
>> I'm fairly ambivalent, on the one hand it seems like a nice shortcut
>> where it will work, on the other hand the status quo is simpler to
>> learn.
>> Any other opinions either for or against ?
> Will not most @*Param declarations be on method/constructor
> parameters. If so we will be removing a static type check. Is that a
> big deal? for these cases is it not better to report the error at
> compile time?
sorry, I don't see the point. Where do we remove a static type check?

best regards