Is there a chance that `@file:Suppress("INVISIBLE_MEMBER", "INVISIBLE_REFERENCE")` will ever stop wo...

# language-evolution

[eygraber]

Is there a chance that @file:Suppress("INVISIBLE_MEMBER", "INVISIBLE_REFERENCE") will ever stop working for accessing internal members of another module?

[Youssef Shoaib [MOD]]

Maybe, but if it does, you can always use reflection.
If this is in relation to the internal kotlin annotations btw, there's a trick to define them in your own module that is as future-proof as it gets.

[Ayfri]

What is the trick ?

[eygraber]

The trick is to define them in your module using the same package as the official ones. Tooling that uses them typically just looks at the FQN.

[Ayfri]

Good to know !

[Laxystem]

Will it be possible to get a @JvmPrivate annotation for `internal`s that can be made private on the JVM, for security reasons?

[Youssef Shoaib [MOD]]

Not sure what you mean by security. @JvmSynthetic is close to what you're looking for.

[Laxystem]

I mean, keep things that would be private in Java but are internal in Kotlin inaccessible to Java (because there are cases where private is forbidden in Kotlin, and allowed in Java/JVM Bytecode) -- as private is one of if not the only real way to prevent other stuff from calling methods

[Youssef Shoaib [MOD]]

@JvmSynthetic hides the declaration from Java completely, other languages (like Scala) might see it though.

[Laxystem]

Exactly, I mean hide from JVM bytecode, which is what private does.

[Youssef Shoaib [MOD]]

If you mean that you want it to not exist in the bytecode at all, then you actually want @kotlin.internal.InlineOnly I think.

[Laxystem]

no no no

[Laxystem]

I mean, exist, but not callable

[Laxystem]

private stuff on the JVM can only be called by specific things. Kotlin prevents it from being used in some cases.

[ephemient]

aside from the new nestmates feature, what is something that could be private but Kotlin doesn't allow?

[ephemient]

note that Java will actually do the opposite: some things marked private in code may actually gain package-private bridges in bytecode, if it is accessed from an outer or inner class

[Laxystem]

@ephemient wait, really? I didn't know that. My bad.
Lemme change my question --- will it be possible to get @JvmPackagePrivate for `internal`s that can be made package-private?