Yes, the grammar is incorrect. Please file a bug (use you email text as
problem description) so we don't loose track of the problem and can
refer to the bug id in the release notes.
Peter Dobratz wrote:
>Peter Dobratz writes:
> > Does anyone know what the LITERAL_THREADSAFE token is for? From the
> > name it would seem like it is a keyword called threadsafe, but there
> > is no such keyword. Am I missing something here?
>I couldn't find any reference to a threadsafe keyword in the JLS first
>and second editions. It's also not in the Oak spec. In order to
>investigate further, I constructed the following class:
>public class T
> int threadsafe = 0;
>This compiles on my Java 1.4.1 compiler from Sun. However, this
>generates a parser error while creating the AST.
>Figuring that threadsafe was intended to be some sort of modifier, I
>constructed the following example:
>public class S
> public threadsafe void meth()
>This does not compile, but it can be parsed into an AST. This would
>seem to indicate that the Java grammar is incorrect, although this
>problem probably won't come up in practice (standard naming
>conventions would make the identifier be threadSafe or ThreadSafe).