Hello: Actually, my use of "this" is deliberate, it is the convention we use at work and my personal preference as well.
I am happy to use the convention of a given file/package/component of course, but since this is new code, I though I'd give it a go. The main reason I use object.message() even when object = this, is that I always think of sending a message in to an object. Granted Java takes some shortcuts with primitives but I like to see things consistently: object.message(). There is also a tricky issue that has to do with how static methods are resolved that I do not recall right now (it has to do with what happens you methods move around in edit/compile cycles.) Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:44 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: svn commit: r234385 - > /jakarta/commons/proper/lang/trunk/src/java/org/apache/commons/lang/text /S > trTokenizer.java > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > - if (ignoreEmptyTokens) { > > + if (this.isIgnoreEmptyTokens()) { > > return; > > } > > - if (emptyAsNull) { > > + if (this.isEmptyTokenAsNull()) { > > tok = null; > > } > > While I understand most of the change here, with the use of methods > rather than direct field access, I dislike the above. > > The 'this.' just seriously gets in the way of reading the code and adds > nothing of value. Perhaps it is just an artifact of a tool you used? > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
