Cool. I'm glad it's all in hand. If you do decide to update the comment, perhaps also add the inverted test to what I suggested, in order to record that expectation.
Cheers, Simon On Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 15:28:53 GMT, Daniel Dekany <daniel.dek...@gmail.com> wrote: My approach was that from the perspective of a dynamic language, the array type is accessible even if the element type is not exposed. That is, FreeMarker can get its elements, and length. If then later it tries to access members of an element, that's a separate matter, and it might succeed, because even though the declared class is not exposed, some types it implements or extends might be. (It's true that the comment should mention primitives though.)
