Hi,
>From the peanut gallery, it seems to me that there is a genuine reason to
leave join as a static method (if we're not going after the google-collections
approach of a Joiner
class<http://google-collections.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javadoc/com/google/common/base/Joiner.html#on%28java.lang.String%29>)
in that split acts on one existing String, whereas join creates one from
others. On which object would you call the join method? The separator? I
know this was covered on this list before, but it still strikes me as
looking a little wierd.
",".join("a", "b", "c")
>
versus
> Joiner.on(",").join("a", "b", "c")
>
Thanks,
Joe
2009/10/23 Mark Reinhold <m...@sun.com>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:10:35 +0200
> > From: Rémi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
>
> > Le 23/10/2009 03:53, Joe Darcy a écrit :
> >> Following up on this, what is the exact revised proposal?
> >>
> >> In java.lang.String:
> >>
> >> public static String join(String separator, Iterable<?> objects);
> >> public static String join(String separator, Object[] objects);
> >> public static String join(String separator, Object first, Object...
> rest);
> >>
> >> with analogous methods in StringBuffer and StringBuilder return that
> type,
> >> respectively, instead of String?
> >
> > I don't know. In my opinion, the main problem with join specified using
> > static methods is that split is not currently specified as a static
> > method. Because join is the dual of split, one could find the usage of
> > static methods weird.
>
> I agree. The join methods should be instance methods, not static methods.
>
> - Mark
>
