On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > What happens at compile time to support inner classes is very tricky and > > unexpected ( by most people ). The compiler removes 'private' and adds > > parameters to methods - the first one does have security implications > > ( not an issue for ant ). I think it is far better to avoid the magic and > > pass the parameters explicitely - and as a benefit the code will compile > > and work with more compilers. > > Yep. I generally have have a no-innerclasses policy unless they are static > and don't access any variables from parent class. Too many things that people > don't understand - I think your only the 4th person who has ever struck me as > knowing how inner classes really behave (and 2 of the others were JVM > implementors).
Well, thanks - but I never claimed I _understand_ how inner classes work :-) ( or why they were designed this way, or why people are using them ). I assume jikes and gcj developers are in the same situation, not understanding very well how this is supposed to work ( since both still have problems dealing with them :-). That's why it's better to avoid non static inner classes. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
