Should the following example cause a compile time error, i.e. is the simple
name usage illegal here?

public class I {
    public static final int CONST = 0;
    static public class Inner extends I {
        public void gus() {
            int xx = CONST; /* <--- Use of simple name "CONST", no error? */
        }
    }
}

The JDK1.1.3 javac does NOT report an error here.

The Inner Classes spec states in section
"How does the Java Language Spec change for inner classes..." talks about
the situation where a member is both inherited and comes from the enclosing
class. It states that the inherited member hides the enclosing member, but
it also states that "...unless the hidden definition is a package member,
the simple name is illegal;" (4th from the last paragraph).

The wording is very poor here, and it is not entirely clear what is
supposed to be illegal. If the code is changed to:

class J {
    public static final int CONST = 0;
}
public class I {
    public static final int CONST = 0;
    static public class Inner extends J {
        public void gus() {
            int xx = CONST;
        }
    }
}

Then it appears that JDK1.1.3 javac DOES report an error, perhaps because
there are now 2 different CONST's:

I.java:9: Variable 'CONST' is inherited in nested class I. Inner, and hides a variable of the same name in class I. An explicit 'this' qualifier must be used to select the desired instance.
            int xx = CONST;
                     ^
1 error


But why the difference.... In fact, if it's trimmed down even further to:

public class I {
    public int CONST = 0;
    class Inner extends I {
        public void gus() {
            int xx = CONST;
        }
    }
}

Still no error from javac!!! It seems to think that since the member
came from the same class, it is ignoring the "illegal" rule???
But the enclosing instance and the Inner instance of "CONST" are different
instances now, and it appears the "illegal" rule has been violated.

Is the compiler wrong, or is the spec incomplete?


-kto