It is NOT a logical extension of what I'm saying. I'm saying that non-trivial finalizers should always include a call to super.finalize().
In "contract-oriented" programming more generally, every method that overrides another should super-call the latter. (The langauges Simula67 (the first object-orineted language) and BETA enforce this by turning this around: Instead of a overriding method calling super, the base methiod calls INNER to call the overriding method.)
It does NOT follow that every class should have a finalizer.
Ok.
Adding a trivial finalizer does NOT help in the event that the programmer changes the classes position in the class hierarchy. But having a (previously redundant) super.finalize() call in a non-trivial finalize method may turn out to be a GOOD THING.
True. I wasn't thinking clearly.
I still don't think it is a good idea reason to call super,finalize
if super is Object - and I don't think we should warn in that case.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bothner.com/per/_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
