Re: My verdict on AST level joint compilation

On 4/27/26 16:35, Milles, Eric (TR Technology) via dev wrote:
[...]
> In general, I think the expectation is that we offer a single source 
> folder that can have bi-directional dependencies between groovy and java 
> sources.

it would actually be interesting to know more about the expectations of 
our users here

> In practice, this has probably reached a good-enough state.  
> The cost of supporting the last 20% -- features like @Delegate, 
> @Builder, and so on -- may or may not be worth the complexity or risk.

agreed

> I have considered the idea of split-phase AST transforms.  For example, 
> if a transform can run in CONVERSION or SEMANTIC_ANALYSIS to add some 
> tags (annotations, interfaces, metadata, ...) or stub elements (fields, 
> methods, inner classes, ...).  Then a second pass of the transform runs 
> in CANONICALIZATION or INSTRUCTION_SELECTION to finish off the code 
> generation.  This sort of thing could help with java stubs.

yes, plus the transform could carry a marker interface that shows it is 
joint compilation friendly.

  bye Jochen