Different behavior between (F) and (Object & F)

[bitter_fox]

Thank you for your fix.

Regards,
bitter_fox

2012/11/9 Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>

> On 08/11/12 16:29, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>
>> Ah right - this gives IllegalAccessErro... this has been on the todo
>> list for a while; I think I will take a stab at it since I'm at it.
>>
> Fixed now - the compiler now applies the same check in both cases.
>
> Maurizio
>
>> Thanks
>> Maurizio
>>
>>
>> On 08/11/12 15:17, bitter_fox wrote:
>>
>>> F#clone was provided default implementation.
>>> My case is:
>>>
>>> interface F
>>> {
>>>      default Object clone() {}
>>>
>>>      void m();
>>> }
>>>
>>> F f = () -> {};
>>>
>>> And it now passes compiler and it makes:
>>>
>>> class $$lambda$n implements F
>>> {
>>>      public void m()
>>>      {
>>>          Enclosing.lambdan();
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      // override protected Object clone()
>>> }
>>>
>>> I think () -> {} shouldn't pass compiler
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> bitter_fox
>>>
>>> 2012/11/9 Maurizio Cimadamore <maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.**com<maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>
>>> <mailto:maurizio.cimadamore@**oracle.com<maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Forget my previous email - I know realize what your email is about
>>>      - should this code work?
>>>
>>>      interface F {
>>>          Object clone();
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      F f = ()->null;
>>>
>>>      I think it should - the metafactory will ggenerate a _public_
>>>      implementation for the clone method - i.e.
>>>
>>>      class $$$lambdaClass$$$ implements F {
>>>          public Object clone() {
>>>              return null;
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>>
>>>      Which is legal...
>>>
>>>      Maurizio
>>>
>>>      On 08/11/12 14:49, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>>
>>>          On 08/11/12 14:40, bitter_fox wrote:
>>>
>>>              In this case, the overridden method is F#clone and this is
>>>              public, and
>>>              the overriding method is Object#clone and this is not
>>>              public. This
>>>              would be compile-time error.
>>>
>>>          Strictly speaking this is all true. Javac (and other compilers
>>>          too) has
>>>          a tendency to defer this kind of checks. For instance, even
>>>          w/o lambdas,
>>>          it is possible to write code like:
>>>
>>>          class Foo<X extends Object & F> { }
>>>
>>>          Now, should this be illegal? The current view is that we let the
>>>          type-witness to provide a public overrider for Object's clone.
>>>
>>>          So the well-formedness check for intersection types has been
>>>          historically loose in this respect; right now, javac is
>>>          re-using the
>>>          same well-formedness check regardless of whether the
>>>          intersection type
>>>          appears as a type-variable bound or as a cast target; this seems
>>>          reasonable, however it leaves out few cases as you correctly
>>>          point out.
>>>          It is very likely that some additional restrictions on
>>>          intersection
>>>          types will come out when they are used as a target of a
>>> functional
>>>          expression.
>>>
>>>          Maurizio
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>