Re: pushing the JLS envelope... (6.4.2. Obscuring)
Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
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 (=A714.3).
("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.
Great question.
The FQN is ambiguous. According to [6.5.2. Reclassification of
Great answer.
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 TypeNam=
e.
<<<<<<
Ergo, foo.Foo.bad_name refers to foo's the member of type String,
bad_name (great name btw.).
"bad_name" == great name.
... At least that's how I'd interpret it.
Makes sense to me, both question and answer.
I shall rethink it a couple or few more times, but so far you seem to have =
it aright.
If so, then
foo.Foo.bad_name.foo(); // fqn doesn't work, either, but shouldn't it?
would fail to compile because 'String' doesn't have a method 'foo()'.
--
Lew