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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #19275 > unrolled thread

Assigning void

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-12 22:54 -0700
    Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 23:27 -0700
      Re: Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-13 12:35 -0700
    Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-13 09:26 -0400
    Re: Assigning void Donkey Hottie <donkey@fredriksson.dy.fi> - 2012-10-13 17:06 +0300
      Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 10:34 -0400
      Re: Assigning void Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-13 22:33 +0200
        Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 17:34 -0400
        Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-13 17:45 -0400
          Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-13 21:35 -0400
          Re: Assigning void Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-16 00:16 +0200
    Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 11:59 -0400
      Re: Assigning void glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-10-13 17:05 +0000
        Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 14:26 -0400
          Re: Assigning void markspace <-@.> - 2012-10-13 11:51 -0700
            Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 15:08 -0400
            Re: Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-13 12:28 -0700
              Re: Assigning void markspace <-@.> - 2012-10-13 12:42 -0700
                Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 12:54 -0700
                  OT - Trolling Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-13 14:16 -0700
                    Re: OT - Trolling Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 18:09 -0400
                    Re: OT - Trolling Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-10-14 18:47 -0700
                Re: Assigning void Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-10-13 20:28 +0000
                Re: Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-13 13:31 -0700
                  Re: Assigning void Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2012-10-20 18:00 +0200
                    Re: Assigning void Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-10-20 09:56 -0700
                      Re: Assigning void "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-10-21 13:24 +0200
                        Re: Assigning void Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-10-21 10:23 -0700
                          Re: Assigning void "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-10-22 00:13 +0200
                            Re: Assigning void Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-10-21 16:25 -0700
                              Re: Assigning void "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-10-22 08:43 +0200
                                Re: Assigning void "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-10-22 10:18 +0200
                                  Re: Assigning void Peter Duniho <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> - 2012-10-22 08:14 -0700
                        Re: Assigning void glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-10-21 19:45 +0000
                          Re: Assigning void "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2012-10-22 00:14 +0200
              Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 12:44 -0700
                Re: Assigning void Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2012-10-15 14:38 +0300
                  Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 09:11 -0700
          Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 15:03 -0400
            Re: Assigning void glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-10-13 20:21 +0000
      Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 12:38 -0700
        Re: Assigning void markspace <-@.> - 2012-10-13 12:49 -0700
          Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 13:03 -0700
            Re: Assigning void Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-10-14 14:09 +0200
              Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 11:31 -0700
        Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 19:55 -0400
          Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 20:25 -0400
            Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-13 21:01 -0400
              Re: Assigning void Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-10-14 18:42 -0700
    Re: Assigning void Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-10-14 00:51 -0700
    Re: Assigning void Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-14 10:40 -0400
    Re: Assigning void Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-10-21 01:24 +0200
      Re: Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-21 14:52 -0700
        Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-21 20:13 -0400
          Re: Assigning void Wojtek <nowhere@a.com> - 2012-10-21 20:20 -0700
            Re: Assigning void Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 11:12 +0200
          Re: Assigning void Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-24 22:03 +0200
            Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-24 17:47 -0400
              Re: Assigning void Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-25 01:02 +0200
                Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-24 20:21 -0400
                  Re: Assigning void Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-10-25 20:04 +0000
                    (OT) Re: Assigning void Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-25 16:31 -0400
                      Re: (OT) Re: Assigning void Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-10-25 20:44 +0000
              Re: Assigning void Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2012-10-25 07:25 -0300
                Re: Assigning void Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-25 11:12 -0700
        Re: Assigning void Sven Köhler <remove-sven.koehler@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 11:01 +0200
        Re: Assigning void Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-23 00:38 +0200

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#19275 — Assigning void

I can legally do the following:

if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
  ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
else
  ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();

but I want to do:

(server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ? 
ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();

However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though 
both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be 
smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.

Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7

Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...

-- 
Wojtek :-)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19276

Wojtek wrote:
> I can legally do the following:
> 
> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>   ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
> else
>   ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> 
> but I want to do:
> 
> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ? 
> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> 
> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though 
> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be 
> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
> 
> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
> 
> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...

The compiler is smart enough to realize that nothing can be returned.

It's also smart enough to realize that standalone expressions, such 
as this one or a lone 'x', are not legal.

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-14.html#jls-14.8
and the rest of Chapter 14.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19291

Lew wrote :
> Wojtek wrote:
>> I can legally do the following:
>> 
>> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>>   ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
>> else
>>   ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>> 
>> but I want to do:
>> 
>> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ? 
>> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>> 
>> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though 
>> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be 
>> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>> 
>> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
>> 
>> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...
>
> The compiler is smart enough to realize that nothing can be returned.
>
> It's also smart enough to realize that standalone expressions, such 
> as this one or a lone 'x', are not legal.
>
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-14.html#jls-14.8
> and the rest of Chapter 14.

I had not considered it to be an expression, though thinking about it 
now, it would have to be.

But it is kind of special in that any assignment is conditional, so it 
could have special rules.

-- 
Wojtek :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19278

On 10/13/2012 1:54 AM, Wojtek wrote:
> I can legally do the following:
>
> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>   ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
> else
>   ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>
> but I want to do:
>
> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>
> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though
> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be
> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>
> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
>
> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...


http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.25

... with special attention to the second BOLDFACE sentence.


-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19279

13.10.2012 08:54, Wojtek kirjoitti:
> I can legally do the following:
> 
> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>  ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
> else
>  ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> 
> but I want to do:
> 
> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> 
> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though
> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be
> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
> 
> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
> 
> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...
> 

Why do you want to use an assignment statement without need or means to
assign anything to anywhere? What's the rationale?

-- 

You can rent this space for only $5 a week.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19280

On 10/13/2012 10:06 AM, Donkey Hottie wrote:
> 13.10.2012 08:54, Wojtek kirjoitti:
>> I can legally do the following:
>>
>> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>>   ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
>> else
>>   ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>>
>> but I want to do:
>>
>> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
>> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>>
>> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though
>> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be
>> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>>
>> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
>>
>> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...
>>
>
> Why do you want to use an assignment statement without need or means to
> assign anything to anywhere?
I'm guessing he doesn’t.
> What's the rationale?
I'm guessing his eye beholds beauty in the latter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19305

In article <q49ok9-rrp.ln1@tempest.fredriksson.dy.fi>, 
donkey@fredriksson.dy.fi says...

> > if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
> >  ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
> > else
> >  ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> > 
> > but I want to do:
> > 
> > (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
> > ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
> 
> Why do you want to use an assignment statement without need or means to
> assign anything to anywhere? What's the rationale?

I think the author is questioning, why this statement is only usable as 
an assignment statement.

Yes you don't it, as you could refactor the code like this:

ftp.enterMode(
  server.getConnectionType() == ACTIVE ? Mode.LOCAL_ACTIVE 
   : Mode.LOCAL_PASSIVE
);

But still I fancy the idea to be able to write:

purse.isEmpty() ? goHome() : goToTheMovies();
as a shorthand for:
if (purse.isEmpty()) goHome(); else goToTheMovies();

What would be wrong about that?

Kind Regards,
Wanja

-- 
..Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down 
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to 
Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with, 
when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19308

On 10/13/2012 04:33 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
> In article<q49ok9-rrp.ln1@tempest.fredriksson.dy.fi>,
> donkey@fredriksson.dy.fi says...
>
>>> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
>>>   ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
>>> else
>>>   ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>>>
>>> but I want to do:
>>>
>>> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
>>> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>>
>> Why do you want to use an assignment statement without need or means to
>> assign anything to anywhere? What's the rationale?
>
> I think the author is questioning, why this statement is only usable as
> an assignment statement.
>
> Yes you don't it, as you could refactor the code like this:
>
> ftp.enterMode(
>    server.getConnectionType() == ACTIVE ? Mode.LOCAL_ACTIVE
>     : Mode.LOCAL_PASSIVE
> );
>
> But still I fancy the idea to be able to write:
>
> purse.isEmpty() ? goHome() : goToTheMovies();
> as a shorthand for:
> if (purse.isEmpty()) goHome(); else goToTheMovies();
>
> What would be wrong about that?
>
According to others in parallel threads it's all wrong.
I agree it would be pretty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19311

On 10/13/2012 4:33 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>[...]
> But still I fancy the idea to be able to write:
>
> purse.isEmpty() ? goHome() : goToTheMovies();
> as a shorthand for:
> if (purse.isEmpty()) goHome(); else goToTheMovies();
>
> What would be wrong about that?

	(purse.isEmpty()
	    ? new Runnable() {
	          @Override
	          public void run() {
	              goHome();
	          }
	      }
	    : new Runnable() {
	          @Override
	          public void run() {
	              goToTheMovies();
	          }
	      }
	).doIt();

Problem solved!

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19321

On 10/13/2012 5:45 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 10/13/2012 4:33 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
>> [...]
>> But still I fancy the idea to be able to write:
>>
>> purse.isEmpty() ? goHome() : goToTheMovies();
>> as a shorthand for:
>> if (purse.isEmpty()) goHome(); else goToTheMovies();
>>
>> What would be wrong about that?
>
>      (purse.isEmpty()
>          ? new Runnable() {
>                @Override
>                public void run() {
>                    goHome();
>                }
>            }
>          : new Runnable() {
>                @Override
>                public void run() {
>                    goToTheMovies();
>                }
>            }
>      ).doIt();
>
> Problem solved!

     ... once the method name in the final line is changed from
`doIt' to `run'.  >Sigh<  The perils of making "clarifying edits"
without similar attention to proofreading ...

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19386

In article <k5cndu$i9t$1@dont-email.me>, esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid 
says...

> On 10/13/2012 4:33 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
> >[...]
> > But still I fancy the idea to be able to write:
> >
> > purse.isEmpty() ? goHome() : goToTheMovies();
> > as a shorthand for:
> > if (purse.isEmpty()) goHome(); else goToTheMovies();
> >
> > What would be wrong about that?
> 
> 	(purse.isEmpty()
> 	    ? new Runnable() {
> 	          @Override
> 	          public void run() {
> 	              goHome();
> 	          }
> 	      }
> 	    : new Runnable() {
> 	          @Override
> 	          public void run() {
> 	              goToTheMovies();
> 	          }
> 	      }
> 	).doIt();
> 
> Problem solved!

Yes, Problem solved. But who wipes the vomit from the floor?

Kind regards,
Wanja

-- 
..Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down 
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to 
Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with, 
when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19281

On 10/13/2012 01:54 AM, Wojtek wrote:
> I can legally do the following:
>
> if (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE)
> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode();
> else
> ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>
> but I want to do:
>
> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>
> However the compiler insists that I must have an assignment even though
> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would be
> smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>
> Oh yes, I am using Eclipse with Java 7
>
> Thoughts? I mean other than stylistic comments...
>
Others have pointed you to the specification.
I don't know why it can't be a shorthand if-then-else statement too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19284

Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

(snip)

>> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
>> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();

(snip)

> Others have pointed you to the specification.
> I don't know why it can't be a shorthand if-then-else statement too.

Java isn't C.

Java allows for method calls that return a value to ignore the
return value, but other expressions that don't use the value
seem not to be allowed.

2+2;

is legal C, but not Java. 

-- glen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19285

On 10/13/2012 01:05 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Jeff Higgins<jeff@invalid.invalid>  wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>> (server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
>>> ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
>
> (snip)
>
>> Others have pointed you to the specification.
>> I don't know why it can't be a shorthand if-then-else statement too.
>
> Java isn't C.
>
> Java allows for method calls that return a value to ignore the
> return value, but other expressions that don't use the value
> seem not to be allowed.
>
> 2+2;
>
> is legal C, but not Java.
>
C has its Rationale.
Java seems not to have a separate formal one.
6.5.15 of the C Rationale only states
the construct is allowed and not why.
15.25 of the Java Spec. only states
the construct is disallowed and not why.
Does it sound childish to ask why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19286

On 10/12/2012 10:54 PM, Wojtek wrote:
> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would
> be smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.


On 10/13/2012 11:26 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> Does it sound childish to ask why?


The way the OP puts it, yes, it comes across as a bit childish.  The OP 
didn't ask "why," he asked for "thoughts."  My thought is "read the JLS."

I realize *you* asked why, but in the vein of the OP's premise, I feel 
"read the spec" is a valid answer.  "Why" requires reading someone's 
mind, and time travel.  Since those are obviously impossible, the result 
borders on trolling.

I'd guess that the original intent and the current thinking is that Java 
should be "easy to read" and that shortening branch flow to a single 
character pushes somebody's Perl buttons, but that's a total guess.

What about this:

   (some large expression || some other large expression )
   ? {
           Statement;
           Statement;
           Statement;
    } : {
           Statement;
           Statement;
           Statement;
    }

?  Do we really want to go there?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19288

On 10/13/2012 02:51 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 10:54 PM, Wojtek wrote:
>> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would
>> be smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>
>
> On 10/13/2012 11:26 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>> Does it sound childish to ask why?
>
>
> The way the OP puts it, yes, it comes across as a bit childish. The OP
> didn't ask "why," he asked for "thoughts." My thought is "read the JLS."
>
> I realize *you* asked why, but in the vein of the OP's premise, I feel
> "read the spec" is a valid answer. "Why" requires reading someone's
> mind, and time travel. Since those are obviously impossible, the result
> borders on trolling.
>
> I'd guess that the original intent and the current thinking is that Java
> should be "easy to read" and that shortening branch flow to a single
> character pushes somebody's Perl buttons, but that's a total guess.
>
> What about this:
>
> (some large expression || some other large expression )
> ? {
> Statement;
> Statement;
> Statement;
> } : {
> Statement;
> Statement;
> Statement;
> }
>
> ? Do we really want to go there?

I suppose it would be allowed in my
boolean expression ? block : block ;
and would probably be ugly per your example.

But I think
(server.getConnectionType() == ConnectionType.ACTIVE) ?
ftp.enterLocalActiveMode() : ftp.enterLocalPassiveMode();
would be pretty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19290

markspace wrote :
> On 10/12/2012 10:54 PM, Wojtek wrote:
>> both ftp methods return void. I would think that the compiler would
>> be smart enough to realize that nothing CAN be returned.
>
>
> On 10/13/2012 11:26 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>> Does it sound childish to ask why?
>
>
> The way the OP puts it, yes, it comes across as a bit childish.  The OP 
> didn't ask "why," he asked for "thoughts."  My thought is "read the JLS."

Hmm, I wasn't questioning the compiler as I would hope it follows the 
JLS.

Yes, I have a C background, and I have used this expression many times, 
and indeed I have nested it several layers deep, since it made most 
sense (to me) to do so.

> I realize *you* asked why, but in the vein of the OP's premise, I feel "read 
> the spec" is a valid answer.  "Why" requires reading someone's mind, and time 
> travel.  Since those are obviously impossible, the result borders on 
> trolling.

So questioning a design decision and trying to understand its rational 
is trolling? Really?

> I'd guess that the original intent and the current thinking is that Java 
> should be "easy to read" and that shortening branch flow to a single 
> character pushes somebody's Perl buttons, but that's a total guess.

There are many ways and many people who try to write code which is easy 
to read. Anyone can write obfuscated code, but seasoned coders tend to 
try to simplify where possible, not use clever tricks, at least IMHO.


> What about this:
>
>    (some large expression || some other large expression )
>    ? {
>            Statement;
>            Statement;
>            Statement;
>     } : {
>            Statement;
>            Statement;
>            Statement;
>     }
>

Interesting. I had not followed the idea that far. Though in common use 
it really just replaces a succinct if/else construct.

-- 
Wojtek :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19293

On 10/13/2012 12:28 PM, Wojtek wrote:

> So questioning a design decision and trying to understand its rational
> is trolling? Really?


Yup, because there's no way anyone on this list could possibly answer 
that question.  You might try asking some of the language conferences or 
at JavaOne.  They might be able to tell you, or at least give you a 
rational.

All I can personally say, and I'm pretty sure all anyone here can say, 
is "Java is easy to read" is a goal, and allowing inline conditional is 
seen as detrimental to that goal.  Maybe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19297

markspace wrote:
> Wojtek wrote:
>> So questioning a design decision and trying to understand its rational[e]
>> is trolling? Really?
> 
> Yup, because there's no way anyone on this list could possibly answer 
> that question.  You might try asking some of the language conferences or 
> at JavaOne.  They might be able to tell you, or at least give you a 
> rational[e].
> 
> All I can personally say, and I'm pretty sure all anyone here can say, 

Nope. I said something different, for example.

> is "Java is easy to read" is a goal, and allowing inline conditional is 
> seen as detrimental to that goal.  Maybe.

I'm afraid I disagree with markspace here. First of all, asking unanswerable 
questions is not /per se/ trolling. Second, there is much one can say about 
the rationale for Java. The Founding Coders have written a lot on the ideas 
behind Java, so we aren't reasoning in a vacuum. Furthermore, the rationale 
is deduceable from the JLS. Or a rationale is, in any event. It is 
straightforward to determine why '?:' cannot be a statement from the cited 
JLS references already.

It is clearly part of the rationale of Java that not everything that can be
done should be. 

Java prohibits standalone expressions as statements, unlike C.

It's such a fundamental and basic and foundational difference between the 
languages that I rarely hear anyone question it. "So Java prohibits 
standalone expressions as statements. Big deal."

Fine. Clearly it's part of the rationale of Java that a statement, to be 
a statement and not just an expression, must effect something.

What does 'x? 4 : 5' effect?

'?:' is placed in the operators table. Ergo, the rationale not to allow 
standalone ternary is the rationale not to allow standalone operators 
generally.

Q.E.D.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19307 — OT - Trolling

Lew wrote :
> First of all, asking unanswerable
> questions is not /per se/ trolling.

I have always considered "trolling" to be making an obnoxious post 
which is designed to inflame someone into making a contradictory post. 
Hopefully many someones.

Asking a "quiet" question which may/may not be answerable is hardly 
trolling.

Or, I am not trying to kick the cat, just tickle it a little.

-- 
Wojtek :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web