<byteit101[m]> Oh, exception in base irb!
<byteit101[m]> ArgumentError: Java package 'java.lang' does not have a method `instance_methods' with 1 argument
<byteit101[m]> method_missing at org/jruby/javasupport/JavaPackage.java:259
<headius> Sounds like some introspection gone wild
<headius> We have problems with those packages all the time
<headius> File something please
<headius> Ahh yeah tab completion digs deep
<headius> We need to figure something out for those package modules...they are sort-of blank slates but don't really work right
<byteit101[m]> I think there is something that needs be updated here:
<byteit101[m]> jruby- :004 > uu = UL.become_java!
<byteit101[m]> jruby- :005 > UL.java_class
<byteit101[m]> => #<Java::JavaLang::Class: rubyobj.UL>
<byteit101[m]> => #<Java::JavaLang::Class: java.util.ArrayList>
<headius> Wat
<byteit101[m]> class UL < java.util.ArrayList; java_signature 'int size()'; def size(); super + 3; end; end
<byteit101[m]> ^ my def
<byteit101[m]> Ah, found issue. PR incoming
<byteit101[m]> Turns out I forgot to set both the instance and the internal variable
<byteit101[m]> Update: it was modules! (super issue)
<byteit101[m]> super() uses reflection, and fails the super call. manually invoking the bridge works with self.java_class.methods.select{|x|x.name.include? "super"}.first.invoke(self.to_java, *args)
<byteit101[m]> the target method is protected
<byteit101[m]> Should jruby use the synthetic super$ bridge path for extensions instead of reflection?
<headius> Aha
<headius> Yeah we probably should be using the bridges most of the time until we can rig it to use method handles or something
<headius> We know it will always work
demon36[m] has quit [Quit: You have been kicked for being idle]
<byteit101[m]> Should I file an issue on it to not loose track of it?
<headius> yeah probably
<headius> it may not be a new thing but we should try to find a workaround