Shared protected var is not visible to subclass if base class is defined in reference

[nerdzero]

Cobra svn:3097 (post 0.9.6) / 2014-01-13 on Mono 3.2.7 CLR v4.0.30319 on Ubuntu 13.10

The following snippet compiles without issue.

@args -t:lib

class Foo
    shared
        var _bar = 1

class Bar inherits Foo
    def testing
        print _bar

This next one fails with the following message: error: For "print" arg 1: Cannot find "_bar".

@ref "Foo.dll"

class Program inherits Foo

    def main
        print _bar

Shared variables with protected accessibility are not visible to subclasses if the base class is defined in a referenced assembly.

[nerdzero]

Does this combination of modifiers make the variable internal to the assembly? Clearly this doesn't happen often as I haven't needed it until now.

[hopscc]

This is as intended.
Theres a naming and access modifier shortcut in cobra (making a shorthand out of a common convention)
vars with a (single) underscore prefix default to 'protected' rather than 'public'
vars with a double underscore prefix default to 'private' rather than 'public'

Override with an explicit is-names clause (watch out for tkt:34 biting) or drop the '_' prefix.

[nerdzero]

Wait, why does the behavior change if the base class is defined in an assembly?

[nerdzero]

Maybe it wasn't obvious but both the "Bar" and "Program" classes in the sample code are inheriting from the "Foo" classes. Protected members should be accessible.

[nerdzero]

the "Foo" class*

[hopscc]

Good point - missed that.

Looks like the lookup for Field members in scanClrType.cobra (_scanClrFields) isnt specifying binding flags for private and static members.

Its using

(BindingFlags(Instance, Static, DeclaredOnly, Public)

which wont get nonPublic or public and static members up the hierarchy...
(strange set of distinctions to have)
should probably be

(BindingFlags(Instance, Static, DeclaredOnly, Public, NonPublic, FlattenHierarchy)

instead which will get protected static members in ancestor classes...

(tried that and it then made your example work....
probably indicates some of the other lookups might also need to include those flags to also find ancestor protected members (properties, methods)...

downside is that it may pick upo a whole lot of other members we're not interested in (and its possibly slower searching up the hierarchy..)

[Charles]

Fixed in changeset:3098

[nerdzero]

Awesome. Thanks, guys.