I am reading the reference and noticed that there seem to be two different syntaxes for resolving a conflict when the compiler cannot know which method to call.
First, there is:
super<A>.foo() and super<B>.foo()
for when a class implementing interfaces A and B which come with a method with the same signature.
Second, there is:
to disambiguate calls to the dispatch vs extension receiver in extensions defined as member functions. The same label syntax is used inside an inner class, accessing the superclass of the outer class to call its method:
This seems a bit inconsistent, there are two syntaxes for similar things (choosing the correct type to dispatch the call to). Why not use one, like for instance:
super@A.foo() and super@B.foo()
for the first case described in my question (interfaces with identical method signatures)?
Please note I’m not criticising or complaining, I guess there are good reasons for it, but I’m genuinely interested as to what they might be.