SI-8143 Regressions with override checks, private members

These regressed in e609f1f20b, which excluded all private methods from
overriding checks. We should only exclude private[this] members on the
low end of a pair, as was done before that commit, and, we must also
exclude private members on the high side.

Why? Warning: reverse engineered intuition follows.

We need to report an error when if a private method in a subclass
has matches a less-private method in the super class and report an
error, lest the user be fooled into thinking it might be invoked
virtually. On the other hand, adding a private method to a super
class shouldn't invalidate the choice names of public members in
its superclasses.

I've removed the test case added by that commit and will lodge a
reworked version of it that Paul provided as a new issue. That shows
a bug with qualified private + inheritance.

In addition, the expectation of `neg/accesses.check` is reverted
to its 2.10.3 version, which I believe is correct. When it was
changed in e609f1f20b it sprouted a variation, `neg/accesses-2`,
which has now changed behaviour. The intent of that test will
be captured in the aforementioned issue covering qualified private
inheritance.

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 17 deletions

diff --git a/test/files/run/private-override.scala b/test/files/run/private-override.scala
deleted file mode 100644
index 0a3f57f97c..0000000000
--- a/test/files/run/private-override.scala
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,17 +0,0 @@
-package test.p1.p2 {
-  abstract class A {
-    private[p2] def f2(): Int = 1
-  }
-  abstract class Other extends A {
-    // It's a private method - not a private[p2] method. Not a failed
-    // "weaker access privileges" override, a different namespace.
-    private def f2(): Int = super.f2() + 2
-    def go() = f2()
-  }
-}
-
-object Test extends test.p1.p2.Other {
-  def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
-    println(go())
-  }
-}