diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | test/bugs/bug132.go | 63 |
1 files changed, 63 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/test/bugs/bug132.go b/test/bugs/bug132.go index 958db9dc4..58ebfcb44 100644 --- a/test/bugs/bug132.go +++ b/test/bugs/bug132.go @@ -15,3 +15,66 @@ Accessing obj.x for obj of type T will lead to an error so this cannot be used in a program, but I would argue that this should be a compile- tume error at the declaration point. */ + +/* Condensed e-mail thread: + +---------- Russ Cox +I don't think this is an error as long as you don't refer to x. I like the fact that you could name +multiple elements in the struct "pad". + + +---------- Rob 'Commander' Pike to Russ, me, go-dev, reviewlog2 +the real question is whether this program matches the spec and if not, which is in error. + + +---------- Russ Cox to Rob, me, go-dev, reviewlog2 +true enough. the spec disagrees with 6g. +when we discussed the disambiguation +rules for anonymous structs i thought we'd +mentioned this issue too and decided the +opposite, but i'm happy to make 6g agree +with the spec. + + +---------- Robert Griesemer to Russ, Rob, go-dev, reviewlog2 +I think the spec could perhaps be more definitive. Note that 6g also accepts: + +type T struct { + x int +} + +func (p *T) x() { +} + +func (p *T) x() { +} + +The spec says that the scope of methods and fields is selectors of the form obj.selector. In a scope an identifier can be declared only once. I'd conclude that in the scope of fields and selectors of T, there are multiple x. But it's somewhat indirect. From a programmer's point of view making this an error seems less surprising, at least to me. + + +---------- Ken Thompson to me, Russ, Rob, go-dev, reviewlog2 +obviously i dont think this is an error, or +i would have made it an error. it seems like +a small point if the error comes up at +declaration or use. + + +---------- Robert Griesemer to Ken, Russ, Rob, go-dev, reviewlog2 +I don't really care too much, but I think it should be consistent. The following code: + +type T struct { + x int; +} + +func (p *T) x() { +} + +func (p *T) x(a, b, c int) { +} + +does result in an error (method redeclared). I don't quite see why this should behave any different then if both x() had the same parameter list. + +PS: I agree that the spec is saying two different things here - or at least should be more precise; the section on selectors (which arguably is the newer section), would allow such a declaration. I suspect that the case below leads to an early error possibly due to some interaction with code that checks for forward declaration of functions/methods (this not having looked at 6g). + +I am happy to go either way. It's a small item and we can close it once we all agree. +*/ |