Hi, On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 11:43, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > Do we have a coding style guideline about redundant field initializers? > I have a patch that removes a couple of these for static fields that > needlessly result in a static initializer method. > > For example in javax.naming.spi.NamingManager: > > - private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb = null; > + private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb; > > // Package private so DirectoryManager can access it. > - static ObjectFactoryBuilder ofb = null; > + static ObjectFactoryBuilder ofb; > > Making this change removes the need for the compiler to create a static > initializer.
Why would a compiler emit extra initialization code for default values
for fields? Not that I object to removing them, but it looks like the
compiler emits unnecessary code in this case.
> Does everyone agree that this is a good idea? If so, how far should we
> take this? How about this change:
>
> - private static int dispatchThreadNum = 1;
> + private static int dispatchThreadNum;
>
> private EventQueue queue;
>
> EventDispatchThread(EventQueue queue)
> {
> super();
> - setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + dispatchThreadNum++);
> + setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + ++dispatchThreadNum);
> this.queue = queue;
> setPriority(NORM_PRIORITY + 1);
> start();
This change seems more logical than the change above since you are
removing an initialization of a field with a non-default value (if not
initialized).
Cheers,
mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
