Johannes Neubauer
Johannes Neubauer
A description how `super`-calls are realized in extension functions is missing, I will add this later on.
OK, I added how `super`-calls could be realized, how the kotlin source code for the given "compiler output" in the realization chapter would look like, added an a little bit...
I added this: > This feature is completely additive as the current behavior stays the same although I think that it is inconsistent with member functions as overloading a extension...
> "Module" in Kotlin is a compilation unit as defined by the build system. It is not "package" (which corresponds to package in JVM). OK I will change that. >...
If you have two different compilation units that you import in a third one, which have different implementations of `foo`, you do not import any of them but generate a...
I see one issue, do you mean this?: If I change M1 and M2 I have to recompile M3, in order to update my local `A.foo` implementation. But this is...
I updated the proposal. It now describes an alternative realization and the issues with the realization in the proposal (which is used for ease of presentation). I added a paragraph...
@dnpetrov are there any open concerns?
Ok. Not a problem :)
Regarding your 2nd point: I already consider this case in the current version of the proposal 0228a9d . The shown "implementation" is just for presentation purposes (to give an idea...