[kaffe] Re: kaffe needlessly rejects foo.class input

Konstantinos Margaritis markos at debian.gr
Thu Nov 25 09:54:27 PST 2004

On Πεμ 25 Νοε 2004 02:40, Kiyo Inaba wrote:
> I am wondering, your patch may reject proper (as far as I know)
> file name like 'foo.class.class' to be rejected. Is it illegal to
> use names like that?


I just consulted some more knowledgeable people than me on this on 
irc, here is the discussion (with permission):

<markos_> hey, wrt to the last mail from Kiyo Inaba, are class names 
of the form name.class illegal? (so that the source is 
name.class.java and the class name is name.class.class)
<dalibor> shoot
<markos_> i'm pretty sure that they should be illegal, but i'd like to 
be sure...
<dalibor> uh.
<markos_> i sent a patch to avdyk, so that kjc would reject a class 
called with the extension .class (ie java name.class)
<dalibor> i don't think name.something.java is a legal file name for 
javac because it messes up the class lookup
<dalibor> as . signifies directories, actually.
<dalibor> (exceot the . before java)
<markos_> ah, that clarifies it
<markos_> i'll quote you in my response :-)
<dalibor> you could cc: tromey, too ;)
<markos_> i'll cc kaffe at kaffe.org
<dalibor> sounds good.

So, I guess it's ok to reject the extension .class from a class name.

More information about the kaffe mailing list