Hi Victor,
... cut ...
Code doesn't match comment - unless I'm mistaken, checking instanceof Byte
won't cover the other numeric types (or a custom subclass of Number).
Righ, it's the old comment, I left it in there for the review (the
assumption of the comment didn't work).
+ if (args[i] instanceof Byte) argTypes[i] = byte.class;
+ // 2005-06-08, rgf, *must* be given, or signatures not
found!
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Short ) argTypes[i] = short.class;
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Integer) argTypes[i] = int.class;
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Long) argTypes[i] = long.class;
+
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Float) argTypes[i] = float.class;
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Double ) argTypes[i] = double.class;
+ }
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Boolean) argTypes[i] = boolean.class;
+ // ---rgf, handle also the case of "Character"
+ else if (args[i] instanceof Character) argTypes[i] = char.class;
OK - I can buy this - except: what about BigDecimal and BigInteger, and what's
the default case (which would handle a custom subclass of Number)?
Well, the strategy here seems to be: if a method with the supplied
signature is not found, then "unbox" the primitive datatypes and try
whether a method signature exists for them. For that reason it would not
be necessary to worry about BigDecimal et.al.: if a programmer uses
them, he would be able to get the appropriate primitive datatype
renderings off them, which then allows for seeking a method using the
primitive datatype signatures in the above section.
+ catch (Exception e3) // 2003-02-23, --rgf, maybe an
IllegalAccessException?
Just stylistic pedantry: why e3?
Well, probably was a little bit depressed while working on that part of
the code...
;)
Seriously, no specific reason other than serving as an eye-catcher to
point to an area where I changed something and wanted others to become
aware of it (to double-check).
Otherwise, I'm happy.
Fine. Thank you very much for your efforts!
Regards,
---rony
