Change isStatic to isStaticOwner in hasLocalInstantiation

[mbovel]

Fixes #19569
Related to #19569, but not a "fix". It actually allows eliminating outer references in even more cases.

[dwijnand]

If you keep the printing you can demonstrate the change in the output, which I think is good evidence:

 List(public T1$C1())
-List(public T2$$anon$1$C2(T2$$anon$1))
-List(public T3$C3$1(T3$))
-List(public T4$$anon$2$C4(T4$$anon$2))
+List(public T2$$anon$1$C2())
+List(public T3$C3$1())
+List(public T4$$anon$2$C4())
 List(public T5$C5(T5))
 List(public T6$$anon$3$C6())
 List(public T7$C7$1())

[mbovel]

Sounds good; I moved the test to generic-java-signature and added a check file (this should also solve the failing Scala.js tests).

[dwijnand]

I think "currently" isn't correct (and thus misleading). Classes that aren't defined in some kind of block are externally instantiable. So they are assumed to be public API, which means a change in the class's implementation can't break the API of that class's constructor.

[mbovel]

I see, this makes things clearer for me, thanks. I will clarify the comment.

But then, we should also not eliminate the outer reference in C1, should we? C1 is also publicly accessible and instantiable. Got it; no need for an outer pointer in this case; the object can be accessed directly from its path.

[dwijnand]

Yeah, it's assumed that T1$ is instantiated only once, by val T1, as opposed to multiple T5 instances.

[mbovel]

Comments updated.

[dwijnand]

LGTM, except for 1 comment word 😄

[He-Pin]

FYI:

val Tiker = "tick"
    class TickActor extends Actor {
      def receive:Receive = {
        case Tiker => // Do something
      }
    }

Will generate a constrocutor with String and

    class TickActor extends Actor {
      def receive:Receive = {
        case "tike"  => // Do something
      }
    }

will not.