On 6/1/2016 2:52 PM, Bjorn B Vardal wrote:
Will the users be able to write their own <sclinit>?
* class Foo {
o __species {
+ ...
}
}
I would assume so; even if we don't support a __species { } block, the
user can still contribute to the species initialization with field
initializers:
__species int x = 3;
So I see no reason to not adopt symmetry with static here.
Your access bridge solution using species methods looks fine, but are
we not solving that with nest mates?
We now have two credible solutions. Before we had species-static,
nestmates were basically a forced move; now its an optional move.
I'm also wondering whether the following are typos, or if I
misunderstood them:
* TestResolution.m_I() was not meant to be decorated with '__species'
* TestForwardRef2.s1_S and TestForwardRef2.s2_SS don't have the
correct modifiers, or should not be error cases.
* TestTypeVar<X>.m_I() was not meant to be decorated with '__species'
I'll let Maurizio answer these.
