Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #26376

pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring)

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2013-10-18 23:48 +0000
  Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring) Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-10-19 02:49 +0200
    Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-10-19 14:41 -0700
    Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2013-10-20 21:33 +0000
      Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring) Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-10-22 12:27 +0200

csiph-web