On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:52:05 -0500, McClain Looney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Unless there is some compelling failure, danger or performance problem
> being caused by this not adhering to the best possible pattern, this
> should not be changed. There are numerous projects depending on this
> library, changing things for the sake of "tightness" would cause
> unnecessary pain.
> By the way, I seem to have missed your patch for this. did it get eaten ?
> McClain Looney
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Simmons <email@example.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 03:34:38 +0200
> Subject: javahl Type Safety issue.
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> I noticed that there are a number of enumerations in the javahl Java
> code. For example, look at NodeKind. I wonder if these could be
> converted to typesafe enum pattern  It shouldn't be that big of
> a deal I would think and would make the interface much tighter and
>  Bloch, Josh (2001), "Effective Java Programming Language Guide",
> Page 104, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-31005-8
>  Simmons, Robert (2004), "Hardcore Java", Page 168-182, O'Reilly,
> ISBN 0-596-00568
> -- Robert Simmons Jr.
> -- Senior Software Architect, Consultant
> -- jambit GmbH
Received on Tue Sep 28 07:12:51 2004