Writing it by hand or generated by compiler is an other question though

It doesn't matter if you write

interface GetText {
    fun getText(): String
}

class MyClass(@JvmField val _text) : GetText {
    override fun getText() = _text
}

or

interface GetText {
    val text: String
}
class MyClass(override val text: String) : GetText

The resulting bytecode is identical.

Ya I know they will be the same, but the original question wasn't asked by me

I know.

Using

@JvmField

is just a fast way to get rid of that warning IMO

It's the wrong way though... 😄

I think what's wrong is the use of the

GetText

interface

How so?

That enum class already got a

val text

, the compiler will give you the

getText()

One example: You have different enum types that both implement

GetText

.

Unless he wants to do additional thing inside

getText()

This is the whole point of interfaces.

True..but in this case he just accidentally use a property name that matches the function

No, I assume he did not realize he can put properties in interfaces (probably Java background). So he tried to write a getter and assumed

val

is like a field in Java.

Oh I think that's the root cause then

Yes, I didn’t know that you can put vals in interfaces and yes, I want to use multiple enums that all implement the interfaces. The problem is solved (val in interface).