If we were to change the interpretation of "this" and "super" for property
expressions, would it be reasonable to let "x" and "this.x" still mean direct
field access when located within "getX()", "isX()" or "setX()"? I do
understand the potential for big trouble if "this" handling was changed. I
thought "super" was more clear, but I am quite concerned that any change in the
property handling could be a breaking change for someone's code base.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:21 AM
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: "super" object expression for attribute, property, and method call
On 26.06.20 16:04, OCsite wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> note please that IMO, /this.foo/ definitely should go through the
> /getFoo/ getter if there's one; that is does not happen currently I
> regard as a pretty grave bug, for it breaks encapsulation. Compare
> please e.g.
the counter example is always:
public class X {
private String foo;
public String getFoo(){ return this.foo; }
public void setFoo(String foo){ this.foo = foo; } }
This works perfectly fine in Java and would lead to a stack overflow in Groovy
as soon as you call the getter or setter. Since it is quite common we have a
problem here.
bye Jochen
