Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16543

The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re

Show all headers | View raw

From: This account has been banned because it violated the Google Groups Terms
Of Use <laughing@u.kook>

NNTP-Posting-Host: 74.14.135.55


On  Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:10:23 GMT, Captain Koloth Derbyshite
<koloth17@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 10:29 am, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
>> Captain Koloth wrote:
>> > That IS the contract.
>>
>> Only half of it.
>
> Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.
>
>> People who write code are just as important as those who use it.
>
> That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
> write code".
>
>> >> But the contract also exists for the SortedMap implementer, and it
>> >> defines what he's allowed to do. If i wrote a SortedMap under 1.4
>> >> that returned a key set that wasn't a SortedSet, which was perfectly
>> >> legal at that point, i would take a very dim view of a change to the
>> >> definitionof SortedMap in 1.5 that made it illegal.
>>
>> > Why? It would be very easy to update it, since the backing Map is
>>
>> But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for
>> change if the contract changed.
>
> Qagh Sopbe'.

Huh?

> Entirely beside the point, given how little change.

>> And you don't know how easy it would be to update it,
>> since the implementation to change will itself be used by other code,
>> which then will need to change
>
> QoH! It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
> SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
> unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more
> unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
> implementation of keySet.
>
>> thus requiring unit tests, regression tests,
>> deployment to a zillion production sites, possible new bugs to fix,
>> delays to other more critical feature improvements or repair, and a
>> whole lot of cost to Java projects overall.
>

> Tojo'Qa'!

Huh?

> What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.
>
>> > sorted. You'd just need to implement first, last, subSet, tailSet, and
>> > headSet, and you could make all of those (in presumably an anonymous
>> > inner class of your map) punt to MySortedMap.this.firstKey(), lastKey
>> > (), subMap(x,y).keySet(), tailMap(x).keySet(), and headMap(y).keySet
>> > ().
>>
>> > It would take all of five minutes.
>>
>> [calls me a liar]
>
> Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!

Paula, are you off your meds?

> If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
> not I!
>
>> > Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap,
>> > really?
>>
>> At the time the contract was written, there weren't any.  Having
>> written the contract, Java must not assume that continues to pertain.
>>  There could be thousands of such implementations by now.
>
> VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.

This doesn't look like you're winning at all, for fuck's sake.

(FNVW, is it possible to nominate Paul "Two Socks" Derbyshire for the Goofy 
Azzed Babboon for this very old post?)


--
If you want to see something lamer than John Edward Kook's Aratzio frogeries,
                   check out Scatboi's forgeries.
"It's not paranoia when it's careful analysis of a trail of forensic
           evidence gathered from post headers, fuckwit." - writes
   Feerless Forensic Usenet Investigator, Nadless the Derbyshite sock.
Then Nadless The Kook presents his 'forensic evidence' of 'outright forgery':
<ju2hm1$r7a$1@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmale.invalid>
<ju55oa$9h3$2@dont-email.me> = From: Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid>

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
--- Synchronet 3.16a-Win32 NewsLink 1.98
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award <Re "This account has been banned becaus" <this.account.has.been.banned.becaus@1:261/38.remove-5bm-this> - 2012-07-29 18:16 +0000
  Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB "Nadegda" <nadegda@1:261/38.remove-5bm-this> - 2012-07-29 18:16 +0000
    Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB award "This account has been banned becaus" <this.account.has.been.banned.becaus@1:261/38.remove-5bm-this> - 2012-07-29 18:16 +0000
      Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB "Nadegda" <nadegda@1:261/38.remove-5bm-this> - 2012-07-29 18:16 +0000
    Re: The Point where the FNVW is asked about eligibility for a GAB Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2012-07-30 00:42 +0000

csiph-web