Hi Rony, --- "Rony G. Flatscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there, > > thinking about String-->Object type conversion to > incorporate into BSF > it will mostlikely make sense to do the same for the > primitive datatype > wrapper classes like Byte and the like, or no type > conversion at all (in > which case it is left to the BSF engine implementors > to convert on their > own). Again, such a need would occur only if a Java > field/method > argument needs type Object values only. > > So what would you think, would it add too much > overhead or would it be > acceptable? IMUO I think it'll add too much of overhead to TypeConvertorRegistry. Adding such a conversion might result in the necessity to add quite a number of other type conversions (e.g. Char[] -> Object[]) which I think too much overhead. :( > > Regards, > > ---rony > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, Sanka __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
