Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: generics puzzle
Date: 19 Oct 2011 13:26:15 GMT
Organization: None
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <9g81fmFj6eU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <9g2f24Fi0vU1@mid.individual.net> <9g5i0eFnnbU2@mid.individual.net> <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net> <9g5salFh1jU2@mid.individual.net>
X-Trace: individual.net gFEom/gN1Z9T/YTVJPP9wgLNgfwchQXA4BEoCgVHChMwrslHqE
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4wvGFUxlAzI/p5selfSk1mnf4xI=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8991

In article <9g5salFh1jU2@mid.individual.net>,
blmblm@myrealbox.com  <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9g5nnhFahuU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Klemme  <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/18/2011 04:49 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> > > In article<45bfae98-a142-469b-9b8b-9aa8a59391f1@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Klemme<shortcutter@googlemail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On Oct 17, 12:41 pm, blm...@myrealbox.com<blmblm.myreal...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:

[ snip ]

> > >> In your case since apparently you want to update internally why not
> > >> just introduce
> > >>
> > >> public void update() {
> > >>    set(modified());
> > >> }
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I can say why this doesn't appeal to me -- something
> > > about not wanting to clutter up GThing with unnecessary methods.
> > 
> > Why is it unnecessary?  It seems this provides a proper abstraction.  As 
> > your example shows and concluding from what you write below you do 
> > already have two or more uses for it.  So by having the method you can 
> > actually reduce redundancy.  That's a common pattern: we find we do 
> > something over and over again, we turn it into a method or procedure.
> 
> Yeah, maybe.  I'll look some more at my actual code.
> 
> > >> This will safely compile.  Basically this is what you did with
> > >> setModified() in the wrapper class.  All other approaches will be
> > >> hacky (i.e. involve explicit casting, using Object parameters or
> > >> return values etc.).
> > >
> > > Yeah, maybe ....  In my "real" code (quotation marks because it's
> > > a toy project embarked on for entertainment and a bit of education)
> > > the method in the wrapper class does more than just call modified()
> > > and then set().  I don't know that that matters much, though.  

What may matter, though, is that sometimes I want to immediately
pass the value returned by modified() to set(), while other times
I want to save the value returned by modified() locally, from where
it might or might not later be passed to set().

My most recent refactoring of the "real" code uses static generic
methods (as suggested somewhere upthread), and for now that seems
not-bad.  I'll probably change my mind again at some point.  :-)?

[ snip ]

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.