It'd be quite odd if ModuleElement and PackageElement implementations of getSimpleName() differed. Since PackageElement.getSimpleName() is around and has defined behaviour, ModuleElement must follow it imho.
Regards, Michael On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:35 PM, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/06/2017 12:14 PM, Stephan Herrmann wrote: > >> On 06.06.2017 18:59, Alex Buckley wrote: >> >>> A module name has the same structure as a package name, so ModuleElement >>> has the same shape as PackageElement: each inherits getSimpleName() from >>> Element, and getQualifiedName() from getQualifiedName() from >>> QualifiedNameable. >>> >> >> Syntactically you're right, but ... >> >> Normally, a qualified name denotes two things: a parent element and a >> child. >> The package name "java.lang" has a qualifier "java" which denotes a >> top-level package >> and "lang" can be used relative to that package to denote a member >> package etc. >> >> For a module - say "java.base" - the qualifier "java" denotes nothing. >> And hence, the simple name "base" cannot be resolved in any context. >> >> So the question is: should ModuleElement.getSimpleName() answer the >> totally useless last segment of the name, or should it answer the same >> as getQualifiedName()? >> > > The answer to that question should apply to PackageElement too, for > identical reasons. However, PackageElement is established API already... > > -- > - DML >
