> De: "Gavin Bierman" <[email protected]>
> À: "Remi Forax" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
> Envoyé: Lundi 13 Avril 2020 18:37:14
> Objet: Re: Record component type can be an inner class of a record
> Thanks for pointing this out Remi. We definitely need to tweak the draft spec
> to
> deal with this scoping question.
> However, I am of the opinion that this example should not be allowed. I would
> expect the scope of things defined in a record body to be the record body. I
> don’t think the record header should be considered part of the body.
> Analogously:
> class Foo<T extends Bar> {
> class Bar { … }
> …
> }
> This doesn’t work as the scope of the Bar declaration is the class body.
> What do you think?
I believe you're right, the following code should not compile, apart if you
want to write puzzler for a living :)
class A { int y; }
record B(A a) implements I {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(new B(null).a().x);
}
}
interface I {
class A { int x; }
}
> Gavin
Rémi
>> On 24 Mar 2020, at 20:57, Remi Forax < [ mailto:[email protected] |
>> [email protected] ] > wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> a record component can use as type a type declared inside the record itself,
>> in term of scoping it's like if the record component is part of the internal
>> scope of the record.
>> record Foo(Bar bar) {
>> class Bar {
>> }
>> }
>> I think it's the right behaviour but i was not able to find any reference to
>> that in the spec.
>> regards,
>> Rémi
