[piercifani]

Problem

In JNI mode, Swift names that are Java keywords, or that Swift writes with backticks, reached the generated Java as they are:

public func automationTag(price: Int64, long: Bool) -> String
public func scale(double: Double, int: Int64, `default`: Bool) -> Double
public enum Pricing { case quote(slug: String, long: Int64) }
public struct Side { public static var `default`: Side }
public func wait()

That generated:

• boolean long and long int as parameters;
• record Quote(java.lang.String slug, long long);
• get`default`();
• a wait() that redeclares Object.wait().

None of it compiles with javac. The Swift thunks broke the same way for parameters named class or default.

JNIJavaKitTests even expected long int as a Java parameter.

Changes

• Parameter names, closure parameter names and enum-case payload names get a _ suffix when they are a Java keyword or a reserved Swift keyword: long_, int_, default_. This applies in both the Java bindings and the Swift thunks; argument labels are unchanged, so the thunk still calls scale(double: …, int: …, default: …).
• Getter and setter names drop a property's backticks: getDefault().
• Methods that would redeclare a final java.lang.Object method (getClass, notify, notifyAll, wait) get a _ suffix, the same way Java-keyword method names already do. That includes the getter of a property named class.

FFM mode builds its parameter names separately and is unchanged here.

Testing

• New JavaKeywordTests (4 tests): keyword parameter names in the Java bindings and the Swift thunks, enum-case payload names, a backticked property, and wait/notify/the class getter.
• JNIJavaKitTests updated: long int_ instead of long int.
• End to end, outside the repository: a package built with JExtractSwiftPlugin whose API uses all of these names. The generated Java compiles with javac and the generated Swift builds in Swift 6 mode. From Java, wait_(), notify_(1), getClass_() and getDefault() reach Swift through their renamed JNI symbols.
• swift test passes.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[ktoso]

I'm happy with the change, thanks.

For future contributions I would request you write at least your commit messages with some of your own voice and not entirely generate them -- this is outlined in the project policy: https://github.com/swiftlang/project-operations/blob/main/contributing/ai-tools.md#writing-and-voice It can be hard to identify how much a contributor thought through a change if it is entirely generated. In this case I'm confident in it, but in others I'm not so sure, so some more argumentation would be helpful, thanks in advance 🙏

[piercifani]

@ktoso fair point! Will do next time!