> which means [super.x] behaves different to this.x Yes, they would be different. I always interpreted this behavior as "references to a class member within the declaring class are direct accesses". For me, "super.x" is not a reference to a member from the declaring class, so MOP is okay/expected. Indeed, there are bugs cited that expect "super.x" to drive getX() or isX() in the parent class.
Is there an explicit definition of explicit "this" and "super" qualifiers with regards to fields? I'm going off intuition and experience. GROOVY-8999 tries to show that there is not consistent behavior and so it is hard to fully understand what can be expected when using the super qualifier. I will proceed with proposed changes to "super.@x" and the error messages. Those items don't seem controversial. -----Original Message----- From: Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:56 PM To: dev@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: "super" object expression for attribute, property, and method call On 25.06.20 23:34, Milles, Eric (TR Tech, Content & Ops) wrote: > The handling for "this" and "super" are separate enough that we could support > different behaviors. I think I am looking to make 2 changes to start with: > > 1) super.@x cannot access a private field and does not try getX(), isX() or > any other alternatives. STC should produce an error for this case. > Currently, if the field is not accessible, "super.getX()" is substituted and > so errors for "no getX() method" can be confusing. > > 2) super.x does not bypass accessor methods. So getX() if it exists, isX() > if its boolean, field if field is accessible and no accessor exists, and > finally propertyMissing/MissingPropertyException. > > As you stated below, #1 is a breaking change. Today an inaccessible super.@x > produces a super.getX() substitution. And I think #2 is a refinement; if > user wants to bypass the accessor method, super.@x is and has been available. which means it behaves different to this.x > I suppose the third change is that when "super.x" fails, the compiler says > "No such property x for B" when A is really the start of the search. Fixing > the error messages would also be beneficial. +1 > I'm not proposing to enable access to private fields, just improve the > consistency of errors and remove workarounds that IMO go against the spirit > of ".@" operator. this has been a story in the past for dynamic Groovy, which is why I mentioned it explicitly bye Jochen
