JCReceiverVariableDecl

[Jonathan Gibbons]

On 05/08/2013 05:25 PM, Alex Buckley wrote:
> On 4/10/2013 5:06 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> Question, on line 867,
>>          // TODO: do we want a separate tag?
>>
>> Answer, yes, and a new Tree.Kind and a corresponding new subtype of 
>> Tree.
>>
>> Reason: imagine someone wanting to walk the tree -- they need to be able
>> to get at the "nameexpr" field.
>>
>> The alternative would be to pack the qualified name into the "name"
>> field.  The uugh-ness of that depends on what the EG decides for the
>> specification of the qualified name.
>
> What qualified name has an unclear specification?
>
> Alex

I think this has already been cleared up.   IIRC, at one point, there 
was a question as to whether the name of the receiver could be any 
appropriate qualified name, or whether it was constrained to be 
simpleName.this.

Either way, in javac terms, it is anomalous, and so the question is how 
best to implement that anomaly. The two options are to extend the tree 
node for a parameter (which in turn is modelled as a variable decl), or 
we can have a new node for the receiver.

-- Jon