Consider this simple enumerated type:

class Foo {
 foo, bar;

 Foo() {
   if( equals(foo) ) {
     // ...
   }
 }
}

javac rightfully points out the illegal access to foo in the
initializer for the enumerated type.  However, javac 1.6.0_01
cheerfully accepts

class Foo {
 foo, bar;

 Foo() {
   switch(this) {
     case foo:
       break;
   }
 }
}

, which of course is broken and fails at runtime.  My question: is
javac right to accept this code (meaning that the language definition
might need some work), or should I file a bug report?