[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [aspectj-users] ajc versus javac
|
To get the desired 1.4 behavior, try running ajc -1.4 ... i.e., use the -1.4 flag to get 1.4 compliance when compiling your code. Ajc defaults to 1.3 compliance.
However, I'd suggest refactoring to avoid the name conflict in the first place.
Ron Bodkin
Chief Technology Officer
New Aspects of Security
m: (415) 509-2895
> ------------Original Message-------------
> From: "David Holmes" <dholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, Sep-24-2003 5:47 AM
> Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] ajc versus javac
>
> It used to be an error to use an unadorned name that could refer to
> either an inherited member or a variable in an enclosing scope. The
> language spec has been changed, if I recall correctly, so that now it
> refers to the inherited member. javac 1.3 and below will give the same
> error as ajc. javac 1.4+ will accept the code.
>
> Personally I prefer the old behaviour. It's really bad form to do
> shadowing like this.
>
> David Holmes
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:aspectj-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Nuno Oliveira
> > Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:27 PM
> > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] ajc versus javac
> >
> >
> > Thanks for answering. Then shouldn't it be caugth by javac ?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maneesh Chaturvedi [mailto:Maneesh.Chaturvedi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:05 PM
> > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [aspectj-users] ajc versus javac
> >
> >
> > Its a case of variable shadowing
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nuno Oliveira [mailto:noliveira@xxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:48 PM
> > To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [aspectj-users] ajc versus javac
> >
> >
> > I have an abstract class with a public field 'result' and
> > an abstract method
> > whose core for the context of my question is:
> >
> > public abstract class myclass
> > {
> > public Boolean result;
> >
> > public abstract void task();
> > }
> >
> > I have a piece of code that looks more or less like this
> >
> > void method()
> > {
> > int result;
> >
> > myclass mc = new myclass(){
> > public void task(){
> > result = new Boolean(false); // error line
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > javac compiles this succefully. However, running ajc on it
> > gives me the
> > error message "The field result is defined in an inherithed
> > type and an
> > enclosing type" in the line mentioned above.
> >
> > Can anyone shed some light on what's going on ? Is this an
> > invalid idiom or
> > is it an ajc compiling bug ? I'm using ajc1.1.1 and jsdk1.4.0_01.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> > _______________________________________________
> > aspectj-users mailing list
> > aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>
