On 2/14/06, Ken Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is no bug to report. (Except maybe that 'super.x' should throw a > syntax error)
Well, of course it should signal an error! If I write super.x = 1 and it does not alter the "x" in the class, then WHAT does it alter, after all? Something that doesn't exists in my code, apparently. This looks like a possible crashing to me. > If the property is shared, then there is only one memory location for an > x property that is common to all instances of A and all of its > subclasses. In that case instanceOne.x, instanceTwo.x, A.x, B.x, or > super.x should all refer to the same memory location. This seems to be the cause of the bug: There _could_ be a shared property called "x" in the super class, that's why the compiler would allow this access at some point - but since there is no such shared property, it must signal an error instead of letting a program run that does not work right. Thomas _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
