Hello,
I think the compiler should complain when sub-classes hold fields with the same
name as super-classes. After all, names (in addition to types) are used to
identify. Intentionally reusing the same name would not only be bad design, but
open the door to hidden bugs.
Remain unintentional name crash: eg forgot to remove a field when established
type hierarchy. Allowing same names lead to strange contradictions by the
language -- see below. Without such a rigor imposed the compiler, we can easily
fall into traps such as:
class C {
int i;
this (int i) {
this.i = i;
}
}
class C1 : C {
// forgot to remove i
int i;
int j;
this (int i, int j) {
super(i); // think i is set?
this.j = j;
}
}
void main () {
auto c1 = new C1(1,2);
writeln(c1.i); // 0
}
Got me 3 times already. I don't understand how it is even possible that C.i is
not the same as C1.i, but evidence is here... There is a contradiction: i is
set && not set. (explaination welcome ;-)
Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany ☣
spir.wikidot.com
