What about to distinguish chainable from unchainable methods by dropping
the 'void' keyword for chainables? So there would be no need to think
about a new type, which is not generally usable e.g. for parameters.
OK, there would be some chance for confusion with constructors, but
method names normally shouldn't start with a capital letter, but
constructors should.
-Ulf
Am 02.08.2008 11:54, Ulf Zibis schrieb:
Am 01.08.2008 10:39, Alan Bateman schrieb:
In particular the Buffer flip/etc. methods come up quite often as the
more specific return type would facilitate better method invocation
chaining.
Some time ago I've discussed this with Neal Gafter. My conclusion is,
that those problems could be solved by a "this" return type.
Example:
public abstract class Buffer {
public final this flip() {
...
return this;
}
}
-Ulf
