On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:02:55 -0300 (ADT), Kenny Freeman wrote:
>I see your point now. I agree with you when you say doing this is a bad
>thing:
> import foo.bar.*;
> import foo2.bar2.*;
>This does cause problems and is not nec. a good thing to do - but I was
>generally thinking allong the lines of importing one or two utility
>classes to save me the trouble of typing out the really long names.
>Importing * is a bit lazy, and in larger classes really does make it
>difficult to keep things organized. Like you said, if you don't import *,
>but list every class like:
>import ken.encryption.RSA.RSAMessageDigest;
>import ken.util.FileReader;
>it makes it more obvious what classes are used compared to the *, where
>you really have to go through the code and find out.
Not only that, but when you go through the code and see a class name,
how can you know where it came from:
SomeClass item=new SomeClass(a,x,t);
With import statements that have "*", where in the world did this
come from? And don't ask me to name my class "UtilTextFoobar"
when it is already in the "ORG.sinz.util.text" package...
Michael Sinz -- Director of Research & Development, NextBus Inc.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------- http://www.nextbus.com
My place on the web ---> http://www.users.fast.net/~michael_sinz
