Re: Package name semantics
On 5/23/2017 1:37 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: To tersely illustrate my confusion: "the" _could_ imply that the existence of several packages named Q.Id forces separate parent packages Q, so that each Q indeed contains exactly one member named Id. From your mail I infer that this is not your intention. I read you as saying: even a single package named Q can contain arbitrary many member packages named Id, provided that (at the location of each package reference) exactly one of those packages is visible (or a compile time error occurs), right? Yes. Alex
Re: Package name semantics
On 23.05.2017 22:12, Alex Buckley wrote: On 5/23/2017 1:04 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: The 2017-05-18 update of JLS 6.5.3.2 introduces the concept of unique visibility, but still has this unchanged sentence: "The package name Q.Id names a package that is the member named Id within the package named by Q." If "the" in "the member named Id" is to be taken literally, then the specification still doesn't work, as I may elaborate if needed. But I assume, dropping "the" in favor of "a" or a similar change easily fixes this to reflect the intention, right? The full text is: - If a package name is of the form Q.Id, then Q must also be a package name. The package name Q.Id names a package that is the member named Id within the package named by Q. [DELETED]If Q does not name an observable package (§7.4.3), or Id is not the simple name of an observable subpackage of that package, then a compile-time error occurs.[/DELETED] [ADDED]If Q.Id does not name a package that is uniquely visible to the current module (§7.4.3), then a compile-time error occurs.[/ADDED] - The editorial style of this section has historically been rather odd, because the first paragraph makes assertions that are true only if the second paragraph's compile-time error doesn't occur. I have continued with that style in JLS9: the first paragraph can say "_the_ member named Id" because the second paragraph assures a unique Q.Id. Alex To tersely illustrate my confusion: "the" _could_ imply that the existence of several packages named Q.Id forces separate parent packages Q, so that each Q indeed contains exactly one member named Id. From your mail I infer that this is not your intention. I read you as saying: even a single package named Q can contain arbitrary many member packages named Id, provided that (at the location of each package reference) exactly one of those packages is visible (or a compile time error occurs), right? Stephan
Re: Package name semantics
On 5/23/2017 1:04 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: The 2017-05-18 update of JLS 6.5.3.2 introduces the concept of unique visibility, but still has this unchanged sentence: "The package name Q.Id names a package that is the member named Id within the package named by Q." If "the" in "the member named Id" is to be taken literally, then the specification still doesn't work, as I may elaborate if needed. But I assume, dropping "the" in favor of "a" or a similar change easily fixes this to reflect the intention, right? The full text is: - If a package name is of the form Q.Id, then Q must also be a package name. The package name Q.Id names a package that is the member named Id within the package named by Q. [DELETED]If Q does not name an observable package (§7.4.3), or Id is not the simple name of an observable subpackage of that package, then a compile-time error occurs.[/DELETED] [ADDED]If Q.Id does not name a package that is uniquely visible to the current module (§7.4.3), then a compile-time error occurs.[/ADDED] - The editorial style of this section has historically been rather odd, because the first paragraph makes assertions that are true only if the second paragraph's compile-time error doesn't occur. I have continued with that style in JLS9: the first paragraph can say "_the_ member named Id" because the second paragraph assures a unique Q.Id. Alex
