is it not possible to use a reference to a field in a companion object without using `.Companion`? `...

# announcements

[bbaldino]

is it not possible to use a reference to a field in a companion object without using .Companion?

class Foo {
    companion object {
        val bar: Int = 42
    }
}
// Works
val member2 = Foo.Companion::bar
// Doesn't work: unresolved reference
val member = Foo::bar

[karelpeeters]

There's pretty big difference between class member function references (type KFunction0<R>) and companion function references (type KFunction1<Foo, R>), maybe that's why it's not allowed.

[Mike]

You could have a bar function on Foo class and in companion. How would compiler know which one? For that matter, how would you? Kotlin favours explicit definitions anyway.

[bbaldino]

true, but java in that situation just errors on the ambiguity

[bbaldino]

but perhaps the inner workings of companion object make that difficult

[Mike]

Or they intentionally show explicit mess over implicit?

[E.Kisaragi]

I guess you’ll need Companion classifies if inside of it

[bbaldino]

what do you mean?

[E.Kisaragi]

Foo::bar corresponds Foo#bar which is instance property
Foo:Companion:bar corresponds Foo.Companion#bar which is Companion’s property
I guess Kotlin requires write Companion if it is in Companion?

[bbaldino]

ah, yeah that's what i found...was just wondering if that was really the case (.Companion being required) or if i was missing something

[E.Kisaragi]

But I think I misreading something — Java doesn’t require it, so Kotlin doesn’t either?

[bbaldino]

Right, java doesn't...but Kotlin appears to.

[E.Kisaragi]

But if Kotlin doesn’t, IDEA would give you a hint that unnecessary ‘Companion’ — I believe in builtin Kotlin support works, mmm