Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 02:49:57 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <l3skvq$kd2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnl63i6p.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 00:50:02 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14a9fa9ec43960cb7cd4b5677e637b09"; logging-data="20898"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mQ3sZCq+0Xkcrv9R6/e2i"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
In-Reply-To: <slrnl63i6p.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:11OYfjbJqKW2IVeLnGoAXOM18ZI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26377

On 2013-10-19 01:48, Andreas Leitgeb allegedly wrote:
> Ok, I know that this breaks conventions and common sense, but
> just for the sake of understanding the JLS...
> 
> --- snip  foo/Foo.java ---
> package foo;
> public class Foo {
>    public static String bad_name = "boo!"; // bad name for a field
>    public static class  bad_name { // even worse, because lower case
>       public static void foo() { }
>    }
>    static {
>       bad_name.foo(); // doesn't work, because field obscures type - Ok.
>       foo.Foo.bad_name.foo(); // fqn doesn't work, either, but shouldn't it?
>    }
> }
> --- end snip ---
> 
> JLS (6.4.2. Obscuring) has to say about this case:
>  - If a field name obscures a type name, then a
>     fully qualified name for the type can be used
>     unless the type name denotes a local class (§14.3). 
> ("bad_name" isn't a local class, so the "unless"-part doesn't apply.)
> 
> Even if the field was non-static, the compiler still doesn't use
> the type but rather complains about unavailability of the field,
> even with the fqn.
> 
> PS: suggesting "rename the field or (better) the type" as a solution
>     is really missing the point of this post.
> 

The FQN is ambiguous. According to [6.5.2. Reclassification of
Contextually Ambiguous Names]:
>>>>>>
  If the name to the left of the "." is reclassified as a TypeName, then:

    If the Identifier is the name of a method or field of the type
denoted by TypeName, this AmbiguousName is reclassified as an
ExpressionName.

    *Otherwise*, if the Identifier is the name of a member type of the
type denoted by TypeName, this AmbiguousName is reclassified as a TypeName.
<<<<<<

Ergo, foo.Foo.bad_name refers to foo's the member of type String,
bad_name (great name btw.).



... At least that's how I'd interpret it.

-- 
DF.