In TASTy, a symbolic package can either be encoded or unencoded

[bishabosha]

Depending on if the package was declared in source, or found on the classpath, packages can be encoded differently in TASTy

Compiler version

3.1.1

Minimized code

Example 1

If we compile this file with a clean classpath, then in TASTy we will have a package declaration for symbollic_>>

package symbollic_>>

class ::

If we instead compile the file to out, then recompile the file with out on the classpath, we will have a package declaration in TASTy for symbollic_$greater$greater.

Example 2

with example 1 from a prior compilation on the classpath, compile the following:

class Bar:
  println(new symbollic_>>.::())

in TASTy all references to symbollic_>>.:: are listed as symbollic_$greater$greater.::, i.e. only the package name got encoded

Expectation

Edit: we should always see encoded unencoded package names in TASTy.

[bishabosha]

cc @sjrd for your opinion

[sjrd]

we should always see encoded package names in TASTy.

We should always see non encoded names in tasty, to be consistent with everything else.

[bishabosha]

We should always see non encoded names in tasty, to be consistent with everything else.

Edit: I see now that scalac/dotc just treats the encoded/unencoded identifiers as equivalent in source code when looking up a symbol

[odersky]

The problem is that that encoding is lossy. So if we want to see non-encoded names in tasty, we'd have to interpret directory names with embedded $greater etc as operators. Not sure we want to do that.

I don't think I have the time to work on this though.

[bishabosha]

we'd have to interpret directory names with embedded $greater etc as operators. Not sure we want to do that.

Encoded top level classes from Java are already decoded to symbolic names so I don't think there will be any undiscovered issue here

[bishabosha]

Alternate solution for lossy decoding is to block symbolic package names in source code, (unless we can somehow reuse platformName for a package?) I do not know how common they are