On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 02:53:43PM +0200, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: > Righ, it's the old comment, I left it in there for the review (the > assumption of the comment didn't work). >
Perfect; not a problem then. > 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. > Ah - ok - I misunderstood what was going on in the method resolution here. Fine by me, then. > Well, probably was a little bit depressed while working on that part of > the code... > ;) > I don't blame you. :) > 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). > OK. > Fine. Thank you very much for your efforts! > No worries. Thanks for providing the unified diff. Victor -- Victor J. Orlikowski <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
