Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Type conversions with the empty string
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:57:55 +0100
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <ef6l8kF5p6bU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <emtpy-string-20170128143107@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: individual.net HkWc0JUFM4oOwgD9PhDNiAIvw2Lx1wwQ8UNDRSeBXUhISw6xc=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bVXB77QKF1MGIXYDPiQpLqYbWuk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
In-Reply-To: <emtpy-string-20170128143107@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:36222

On 28.01.2017 14:43, Stefan Ram wrote:

>   I'd say that
>
> "".valueOf( 123 )
>
>   is even more robust than
>
> String.valueOf( 123 )
>
>   because the former is still working when a file =C2=BBString.class=C2=
=AB
>   is found early enough in the class path.

What do you mean by that?  Why would the second form be less robust?=20
This does not make any sense to me as the same class is used.

Regards

	robert

--=20
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/