Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #7405 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-26 20:56 -0400 |
| Last post | 2011-08-31 00:31 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 on this page of 182 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-26 20:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-27 09:58 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Rajiv Gupta <rajiv@invalid.com> - 2011-08-27 18:02 +1000
Re: Style Police (a rant) v_borchert@despammed.com (Volker Borchert) - 2011-08-27 08:40 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 13:27 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 13:33 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-27 11:08 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:34 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:37 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 17:59 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 18:06 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 18:08 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 09:50 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 19:15 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 13:09 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-27 23:18 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 16:10 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-28 01:59 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 18:59 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-28 15:32 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-28 13:09 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 04:02 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-28 19:20 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 09:44 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-29 08:30 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-29 16:37 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-29 12:10 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-29 18:21 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2011-08-29 04:06 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-10 06:45 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-10 11:40 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 14:06 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 14:07 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:55 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:34 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-09-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:22 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Bent C Dalager <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> - 2011-09-14 15:04 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Paul Cager <paul.cager@googlemail.com> - 2011-09-14 09:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:47 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-17 00:57 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-17 19:56 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 17:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-12 01:22 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-11 23:42 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 07:18 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:07 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 08:15 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 12:00 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-13 10:10 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:55 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 10:37 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_9112011@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-15 22:58 -0400
Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 00:23 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 03:26 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) un-Bent <dob@dib.dib.null> - 2011-09-16 13:02 +0000
Murphy = Troll [DO NOT FEED] thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-16 22:40 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-17 19:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 08:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 11:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 17:05 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-19 19:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely "kaffel'latte" <jiggingjava@qmail.net> - 2011-09-19 20:45 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) k00k Derbyshire spins freely thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-21 18:37 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:13 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-26 19:34 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 06:49 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 09:21 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 14:17 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 21:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:17 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:56 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:59 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:13 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 21:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-12 07:36 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:12 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 09:42 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-11 20:35 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 16:55 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 20:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-12 10:05 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-09-13 10:35 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 09:48 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 12:18 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 17:30 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:59 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 10:54 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 01:54 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-09-24 02:58 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-24 11:35 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Joe Attardi <jattardi@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 13:50 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-26 21:14 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:50 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-04 15:56 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-11-07 12:04 -0500
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-10 15:22 -0800
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 17:47 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-04 15:48 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> - 2011-11-05 07:58 -0500
Re: Style Police (a rant) "tholen@antispam.ham" <tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu> - 2011-11-10 15:17 -0800
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 15:17 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 00:50 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:55 -0600
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:14 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:31 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-26 22:24 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Jane Doe <jdoe@love.in.d.jungle.invalid> - 2011-09-27 09:30 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) tisue@cs.nwu.edu (Seth Tisue) - 2011-09-27 08:57 -0600
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:38 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-09-30 15:58 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:32 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-30 21:26 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 07:34 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-10-01 15:51 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:18 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-01 16:26 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-10-01 21:25 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 06:23 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-05 10:01 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 08:29 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-10-07 17:34 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Retahiv Oopsiscame <roopsisc@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 21:58 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 04:52 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 05:14 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 06:42 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Cthun <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 07:20 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "Cthun" <cthun_117@qmail.net.au> - 2011-09-12 08:46 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-09-12 21:03 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-09-12 20:18 +0100
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 21:20 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-11 13:52 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-12 00:17 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-10 21:32 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 13:27 +0200
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 11:05 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 13:23 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-11 10:04 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-11 12:45 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 16:53 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-14 12:30 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-14 20:47 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 18:06 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 10:06 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:28 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-09-20 07:36 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-20 13:04 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-20 20:34 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-09-14 22:33 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-15 13:46 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-14 21:40 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-09-11 10:59 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-09-11 21:25 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-08-27 14:00 +0100
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-27 08:42 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-27 11:58 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2011-08-28 08:21 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-08-28 18:07 -0300
Re: Style Police (a rant) Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-08-29 04:20 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-08-29 09:11 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-08-29 20:50 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-30 11:27 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-30 09:36 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-30 17:51 +0000
Re: Style Police (a rant) Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> - 2011-08-30 08:51 -0400
Re: Style Police (a rant) Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-30 09:04 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Style Police (a rant) Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2011-08-31 00:31 +0200
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-30 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <236d40a3-d367-4576-ada3-c0d842282483@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7498 |
Patricia Shanahan wrote: > Eric Sosman wrote: > ... >> Almost. It checks exactly what somebody tells it to check in the >> config file that somebody requires me to use. > ... >> I'm just ranting at the absurdity of a criterion that says Object >> itself is "not designed for extension." >> > > The criterion could be described better. Maybe it should be something > like "needs very careful design and documentation to achieve correct > extension". A big chunk of the Object API documentation, for example, > discusses the rules for equals, hashCode, and the relationship between > them in classes that override them. > > It seems to me that the best use of this type of tool for that sort of > check is to prevent such things being done casually. The extra > hoop-jumping for turning off the check in a class is not that big > compared to the work that needs to be done to ensure correct extension. > > Of course, if the powers-that-be forbid turning off the check, there is > a much bigger problem. What we're overlooking here is that 'Object' actually does violate the rule, and that it's not actually a bad rule. The exception probes the rule - what we need to understand is _why_ 'Object' breaks the rule, and the dangerous behaviors it permits thereby. As Patricia aptly points out, it takes a mountain of documentation, comprising not only the voluminous Javadocs but volumes of articles, chapters in _Effective Java_, and innumerable blog posts to prevent errors involving mismatches between 'equals()', 'hashCode()', 'toString()', and where applicable, 'compareTo()', because 'Object' is most definitively not "designed for extension" in the sense intended by the principle. A class designed for extension in this context means designed *for the compiler to enforce extensibility*. The downside to the rule-breaking (intentional though it be) in 'Object' is that it allows, nay encourages error. The exact sort of error that Checkstyle is trying to prevent you from committing. So shut the front up, get over yourself, and understand the reasons for the rule. Yes, it can and even should be violated under certain circumstances. But don't present 'Object' as a counterexample when in fact it is the poster child for why the rule is valid. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-31 00:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j3jobq$8nq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7501 |
On 30/08/2011 18:43, Lew allegedly wrote: > As Patricia aptly points out, it takes a mountain of documentation, > comprising not only the voluminous Javadocs but volumes of articles, > chapters in _Effective Java_, and innumerable blog posts to prevent > errors involving mismatches between 'equals()', 'hashCode()', > 'toString()', and where applicable, 'compareTo()' That's more a matter of exposure than anything else. Explaining the problem and the solution can be done fairly succinctly. For the record, I disagree with the rule you're defending by relabelling counter-examples exceptions to it. Leaving the theory aside for a moment, I regard it as relatively pernicious in practice. Code properly structured into logical, functional blocks is resistant enough with respects to the dangers of ill-advised overriding, making that rule in effect unnecessarily restrictive IMHO. -- DF. Determinism trumps correctness.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web