Cannot use super when overriding values?!

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Aleksey Nikiforov wrote:
> I have just stumbled upon this strange limitation.
>
> abstract class Foo {
>  protected val bar1: Int = 1
>  protected def bar2: Int = 2
> }
>
> class Baz extends Foo {
>  override val bar1 = super.bar1 // Compiler: super may be not be use
> on value bar1
>  override def bar2 = super.bar2
> }
>
> I get the message: "super may be not be use on value bar1". Besides
> having strange grammar this limitation does not make sense to me.
>
> Are there any reasons to prevent using super when overriding values or
> is this a bug?
>
Seems to be an intended behaviour as per
https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-899

(java)
public String x = "fsdfdsf";

how you are going to override a direct field access? if there was a "i
don't care about java interop", it would probably work.

Am 22.08.2011 20:21, schrieb Dhananjay Nene:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Aleksey Nikiforov wrote:
>> I have just stumbled upon this strange limitation.
>>
>> abstract class Foo {
>> protected val bar1: Int = 1
>> protected def bar2: Int = 2
>> }
>>
>> class Baz extends Foo {
>> override val bar1 = super.bar1 // Compiler: super may be not be use
>> on value bar1
>> override def bar2 = super.bar2
>> }
>>
>> I get the message: "super may be not be use on value bar1". Besides
>> having strange grammar this limitation does not make sense to me.
>>
>> Are there any reasons to prevent using super when overriding values or
>> is this a bug?
>>
> Seems to be an intended behaviour as per
> https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-899
>

To be clear, it is possible to override vals in Scala, so your
explanation is incorrect. What I was curious about is why it is not
possible to use super when overriding vals.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, HamsterofDeath wrote:
> (java)
> public String x = "fsdfdsf";
>
> how you are going to override a direct field access? if there was a "i
> don't care about java interop", it would probably work.
>

i've looked at it a bit deeper and now i don't see a reason why it
doesn't work, but i also don't see a reason why you would want to
override a field and not change it's value.

but i do remember stumbling on this a year ago and switching to defs
instead of vals for everything

Am 22.08.2011 20:34, schrieb Aleksey Nikiforov:
> To be clear, it is possible to override vals in Scala, so your
> explanation is incorrect. What I was curious about is why it is not
> possible to use super when overriding vals.
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM, HamsterofDeath wrote:
>> (java)
>> public String x = "fsdfdsf";
>>
>> how you are going to override a direct field access? if there was a "i
>> don't care about java interop", it would probably work.
>>

I just wanted to change the visibility of a val from protected to
public. But as Iain has pointed out, many other use-cases are lost due
to this restriction.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:07 PM, HamsterofDeath wrote:
> i've looked at it a bit deeper and now i don't see a reason why it
> doesn't work, but i also don't see a reason why you would want to
> override a field and not change it's value.
>
> but i do remember stumbling on this a year ago and switching to defs
> instead of vals for everything
>