Named constructors have separate namespace

[peter-ahe-google]

Consider this class:

class Foo {
  Foo.bar();
  static bar() => new Foo.bar();
}

This allows you to write:

var a = Foo.bar();
var b = new Foo.bar();

This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of what we set out to achieve when it comes to avoiding multiple name spaces.

[gbracha]

I agree this is undesirable. Nevertheless, I'm tentatively categorizing it as an enhancement rather than a defect (a defect is an inconsistency/error in the spec). I agree we should try and fix it.

---

Set owner to @gbracha.
Removed Type-Defect label.
Added Type-Enhancement, Accepted labels.

[gbracha]

Added this to the M1 milestone.

[gbracha]

Section 7.6 now reads:

A constructor name always begins with the name of its immediately enclosing class, and may optionally be followed by a dot and an identifier id. It is a compile-time error if id is the name of a member declared in the immediately enclosing class.

I think this resolves the issue in the spirit of a single namespace.

---

Added Done label.

[DartBot]

This comment was originally written by @mhausner

---

What about this case:

class A {
  foo() {...}
}

class B extends A {
  B.foo() {...}
}

The above text would allow this, but what is the semantics? Would the instance method foo, which is inherited by B, get overridden by the named constructor B.foo ?

[gbracha]

In this case, nothing has changed from previous behavior. Constructors never override anything and are not inherited. So A's foo() and the constructor in B do not interact.