| Summary: | [xtend] Report issue on duplicate unnamed extension fields | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Modeling] TMF | Reporter: | Jan Koehnlein <jan> |
| Component: | Xtext | Assignee: | Project Inbox <tmf.xtext-inbox> |
| Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | sven.efftinge |
| Version: | 2.0.1 | Flags: | jan:
indigo+
|
| Target Milestone: | SR2 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
Although I can't see a reason why one would want to have extensions of the same type twice it should be a warning. I think we can have that warning no matter there is a name or even two different names specified. Marking the extension keyword seems appropriate. I made it an error anyway ;-) Pushed to MASTER Closing all bugs that were set to RESOLVED before Neon.0 Closing all bugs that were set to RESOLVED before Neon.0 |
The following code is compiled fine even though the second extension is unreachable unless you know its synthetic name "_string_1" class XtendClass extends JavaClass { @Inject extension String @Inject extension String } Should we report an issue here? If so, error or warning?