Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:05:05 -0500
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 14:05:03 +0100
From: lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk">
Organization: Trollbusters 3
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A small exercise
References: <exercise-20130420150736@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <R_2dnU9jtOi9Ie_MnZ2dnUVZ7q-dnZ2d@bt.com> <5172e967$0$32109$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <LvqdnUgkK5sPJO7MnZ2dnUVZ7oydnZ2d@bt.com> <517b3461$0$32112$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <2rWdnWTV7bz8FubMnZ2dnUVZ7qGdnZ2d@bt.com> <517c8241$0$32104$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <2fednevwr_TPZuHMnZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <2fednevwr_TPZuHMnZ2dnUVZ8uCdnZ2d@bt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fqednfqEEsscg-DMnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@bt.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-h5p45TjoGObxlEz4yxmnFGhffxExed38nzFDIQLXSsDwdY+xR5vetjLf1osoPxFOVvDE6MZQLuH2eVV!3bjlwyRiZg4s5VEMhcY/EalVUNW3Kp4+ndGHebPrHczzYBtfYT8HDmx0FTjh2uv29lZ4o1WtC2o=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3032
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:23695

On 28/04/13 11:34, Chris Uppal wrote:

[snip]

> I'm guessing (and I admit that I can find no other supporting evidence) that
> this is a bug in the compiler where code that is written on the assumption that
> "C" above must be a strictly enclosing class.  In those case the (equivalent)
> code would obviously be incorrect (and that goes for the blank-final example
> too).  In particular I suspect that its something going squiffy in the
> contorted logic that allows nested classes to refer to private fields of the
> [not actually] "enclosing" class at runtime: that horrible stuff that is added
> to circumvent the JVMs own checking.
>
> But I may as well admit that one piece of evidence against my guess is that
> both javac and Eclipse "fail" in the same way.

Not sure what you mean here as Eclipse can be configured to use 
different compilers independently of the version of Java used to run the 
application (Eclipse)

I configured Eclipse to compile against

java-7-openjdk
and, separately
java version 1.6.0_35

and both times came up with the same error

So, it's not actually Eclipse that barfed per-se but two different 
releases of the language ... which is leading me to believe that it's 
not a *bug* but a poorly understood (by me) application of the rules of 
the language by the compiler.

If I could just figure out what the rule was :-(

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun