javac bug: Resolving conflicting defenders in interfaces

[maurizio cimadamore]

I agree this should compile

Maurizio

On 28/10/2010 18:51, Brian Goetz wrote:
> Here, we have interfaces with conflicting defenders, and we try and resolve
> the conflict in a subinterface:
>
>       private interface A {
>           public extension int get() default Implementations.one;
>       }
>
>       private interface E {
>           public extension int get() default Implementations.two;
>       }
>
>       private interface F extends A, E {
>           public extension int get() default Implementations.two;
>       }
>
> test-compile:
>       [javac] Compiling 1 source file to
> /home/brian/work/mangler/trunk/defender/build/test-classes
>       [javac]
> /home/brian/work/mangler/trunk/defender/test/src/junit/MultipleInheritanceTest.java:25:
> types E and A are incompatible; both define get(), but with unrelated default
> implementations
>       [javac]     private interface F extends A, E {
>       [javac]             ^
>       [javac] 1 error
>
>
> I would argue this case should be allowed because F provides an unambiguous
> default for get().  (The resolution rules say that any defender provided by F
> "shadows" the defender provided by F's superinterfaces.)
>
> The compiler does get this right when F is a real class and F provides an
> implementation of get().
>
>