Recursive getter does not throw warning when using pattern matching

[victor-tinoco]

So, if you declare a class with a getter, like this:

class A {
  String get name {
    return switch (this) {
      // Notice that while declaring the name getter, I can access it here without warning.
      A(name: final name) => name,
    };
  }
}

The recursive_getters rule should warn this case, shouldn't it? Pattern matching does allow you to refer to the getter you're declaring (on its declaration scope body). The same occurs when you create a getter through an extension.

I fell in this case because of my copilot, when I tried to build it by running the tests, it just crashed with a non-descriptive error, probably because it is like a recursion with no break. It should not be allowed since it always falls in a runtime error.

Obs.: Re-opening it from dart-lang/language#3652.

[lrhn]

It's not always a mistake to invoke the same getter, of it's not on the same object.
Fx:

  Node get last { 
    return switch (this.next) {
      // Notice that while declaring the name getter, I can access it here without warning.
      A(last: final last) => last,
      _ => null,
    };
  }

Same getter called, but not on the same object.

So this issue requires not just figuring out that the same getter is office again, but also determining whether it's definitely, or possibly, on the same object.
That's not always going to be possible.

[victor-tinoco]

It's not always a mistake to invoke the same getter, of its bout on the same object. Fx:

  Node get last { 
    return switch (this.next) {
      // Notice that while declaring the name getter, I can access it here without warning.
      A(last: final last) => last,
      _ => null,
    };
  }

Same getter called, but not on the same object.

So this issue requires not just figuring out that the same getter is office again, but also determining whether it's definitely, or possibly, on the same object. That's not always going to be possible.

Yea, we might apply this only when using switch for this, for example. I mean, we have a linter with exactly this proposal recursive_getters, it looks like it surely might cover it.