I'm learning Kotlin and I'm reading this days Kotlin in Action. Reading the chapter about extension functions and standard library improvement, I read about different behaviour exposed by String.split overloads between Java and Kotlin: I think it's a very good idea to move toward an explicit and more type-guided separation between delimiters-based and regex-based overloads.

About this, the book I've mentioned above says that Kotlin hides the confusing method and provides as replacements several overloaded extensions named split that have different arguments.

Extension functions respond to the questione "How can I add method to an existing class"; on the other hand, I can't figure out how it's possibile to hide methods provided by the Java Standard Library.

I did some attempts writing simple code, and I noticed that

1. val ks = "Pietro Martinelli" has ks::class.qualifiedName == "kotlin.String"
2. val ks = "Pietro Martinelli" has ks::javaClass.name == "java.lang.String"
3. passing the above value ks to a Java method, the received parameter x has x.getClass().getName() == "java.lang.String" (as expected)
4. String js = "Pietro Martinelli" (in Java code) has js.getClass().getName() == "java.lang.String", as expected
5. passing the above js value to a Kotlin method, the received parameter y has y::class.qualifiedName == "kotlin.String" and y.getClass().getName() == "java.lang.String" (as so far expected)

So: it seems that (let me say) something magic occurred when I use String values in Kotlin and back and forth from Kotlin to Java. If I undestand correctly, String literals in Kotlin are instances of kotlin.String but they are bounded to a Java type that is transparently used for Java method calls. This way Kotlin library can enhance String experience without affecting java.lang.String: usual Java [java.lang.]String.split methods are hidden to Kotlin code in the sense that Kotlin developers see [kotlin.]String instances and their methods.

So, two (related) question: 1. is my understanding right? And, more interesting 2. it's only a kind of magic put in place by the compiler, which knows Strings as instances of a special type and wraps them behind instances of a different class, or is there some more general approach/mechanic that permits to someway hide some method of a class the same way we can add methods through the extension function mechanic? It can be very dangerous, so I think it's only a matter of the compiler, but it can be powerful, too, so I think it's worth the question.

Thank in advance for hints and feedbacks.