- 10 12月, 2020 19 次提交
-
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-20423
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-20423
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-13495
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-13495
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-13495
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
#KT-13495
-
由 Jiaxiang Chen 提交于
-
由 Jiaxiang Chen 提交于
-
由 Dmitry Petrov 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Jinseong Jeon 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
#KT-43669 Fixed
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Mikhail Glukhikh 提交于
-
由 Alexander Udalov 提交于
-
由 Dmitriy Novozhilov 提交于
-
- 09 12月, 2020 21 次提交
-
-
由 anastasiia.spaseeva 提交于
-
由 anastasiia.spaseeva 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
In 201, there's an old ASM version and PSI doesn't have record-related API
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
To make it compilable with 201 platform
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
The problem is that JvmRecord has SOURCE retention Probably, increasing its retention might be a more reliable solution (or in some other way serializing that the class is a record) Just checking supertypes seems like a reasonable approximation: only records kotlin are allowed to extend j.l.Record. But the relevant diagnostic has been added only since 1.4.30, so potentially there could have been exist a non-record class with such supertype compiled by 1.4.20, but this case seems to be ill-formed and marginal anyway. For Java classes, it's irrelevant since they don't have member properties (only synthetic extensions) ^KT-43677 In Progress
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
^KT-43677 In Progress
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
^KT-43677 In Progress
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
^KT-43677 In Progress
-
由 Denis.Zharkov 提交于
^KT-43677 In Progress
-