Java identifier vs. BON keyword clash

[atiti]

If a BON keyword is used as a Java identifier then BON generated from a Java architecture is not type-correct.

E.g., {{{ public void add(/_@ nonnull @/ Object object, int index) }}} generates {{{ add -> index: INTEGER -> object: ANY }}}

[atiti]

From: fintan (GH: fintanf) Date: Mon Mar 14 10:00:54 2011

We should devise a naming scheme that gets around this but can still be automated.

• We need to produce the set of java and bon keywords.
• When translating, we check if it will produce an issue (i.e. is in the set of reserved words for the language).
• When there is an issue, we apply an auto-rename (e.g. a simple prefix, "int" becomes "beetlz_rename_int")
• We need to recognise the auto-rename when parsing and remove it from the internal representation. This will allow the checker and translator to essentially ignore the auto-rename.

The above will look a bit clunky when used, although hopefully this will encourage the user to rename appropriately to avoid it being seen again!

[atiti]

From: kiniry (GH: kiniry) Date: Mon Mar 14 10:28:51 2011

Don't forget that a warning should be issued too, and this analysis should happen even if refinement generation is not requested (i.e., when using the -cc, -cf, -f, or -tc switches on BONc).