Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: static data for methods...
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:44:15 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <l367f1$iqm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnl5ape4.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d13404d57b2028fe1900165c7807070a"; logging-data="19286"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/E72NIyjocZHGo//6yY887"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
In-Reply-To: <slrnl5ape4.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YoBT3NisV0kDnp+GSB4Es92nT40=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26282

On 2013-10-09 16:18, Andreas Leitgeb allegedly wrote:
> I'm aware that in Java, methods cannot have static data within
> them.  The usual "workaround" is to place static data for a
> method in static fields of the class.  However, I need the
> static fields lexically separated for the methods.
> 
> My first thought was to write a static class named after the
> method, then start the method like this:
> 
>   static class static_fuBar { static int foo; static int bar; ... }
>   public static void fuBar(...) {
>      import static static_fuBar.*;
>      // now use foo and bar by their bare names ...
>   }
> 
> That of course doesn't work, either, because Java is very 
> restrictive about where "import static" can be used. (I added
> it merely to illustrate what I'd like to arrive at.) Is there
> some other trick?
> 
> 
> PS: besides fuBar, I'll also have a couple further methods with 
>   each's own set of effectively-static canonically-named fields, so 
>   making foo&bar just static fields of the main class is not an option.
>   also renaming each foo and bar to <methodname>_foo and <methodname>_bar
>   isn't satisfying.
> 
> PPS: If this path of thought is really a dead end, then I'll do
>   the backtracking, myself, so no need asking for the broader picture.
> 

Quick Q: is this you trying to be economical while doing a refactoring,
or you designing a FUBAR'd mess?

-- 
DF.