From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31537 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2003 23:32:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31529 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 23:32:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piglet.dstc.edu.au) (130.102.176.1) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 23:32:18 -0000 Received: from dstc.edu.au (credence.dstc.edu.au [130.102.177.137]) by piglet.dstc.edu.au (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h37NW9iE013522; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:32:09 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200304072332.h37NW9iE013522@piglet.dstc.edu.au> To: raif@fl.net.au cc: Stephen Crawley , Brian Jones , classpath@gnu.org, Mauve , crawley@piglet.dstc.edu.au Subject: Re: classpath ./ChangeLog ./THANKYOU ./configure.in... In-Reply-To: Message from "Raif S. Naffah" of "Tue, 08 Apr 2003 08:52:46 +1000." <200304080852.47734.raif@fl.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 23:32:00 -0000 From: Stephen Crawley X-Virus-Scanned: Message: ok X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.9 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang) X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 > > The problem was that the failing test cases' constructors were not > > declared public. On Kissme, this (correctly IMO) caused the call to > > 'Class.newInstance' to throw an InstantiationException... > > shouldnt this be an IllegalAccessException? as the docs states this > exception is thrown "...if the class or its nullary constructor is not > accessible." > > also, is it legal for a JVM to try altering the accessibility of a > non-public, but nullary ctor, before bailing out, and then and only > then throw an InstantiationException? Good questions. The JDK javadoc is not entirely clear on either of them. I'll try some experiments with various Sun JDKs -- Steve