On this topic ...
On 21/05/2018 4:48 PM, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 21/05/2018 4:12 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
On 05/21/2018 07:57 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Do we really need to spell out the case for primitives and arrays? If
May I add that getEnclosingClass() doesn't explain that primitive and
array classes are considered top-level classes. Similarly getNestHost()
doesn't explain that they are not explicitly nested classes.
Note: it was deliberate to not phrase this in terms of top-level classes
in case in the future we want to expand the notion of nestmates further
(such as "all classes defined in the same compilation unit form a nest").
Thanks,
David
-----
so would it suffice to add the following:
"A class or interface that is not explicitly a member of a nest
*(such as primitive or array classes)*, is a member of the nest
consisting only of itself, and is the nest host. Every class and
interface is a member of exactly one nest."
That's fine, but then someone might wonder whether only primitive and
array classes are not explicit members of a nest.
What about:
"A class or interface that is not explicitly a member of a nest
*(including but not limited to primitive and array classes)*, is a
member of the nest consisting only of itself, and is the nest host.
Every class and interface is a member of exactly one nest."
But "including but not limited to" is just a more verbose way of saying
"such as". "such as x" introduces an example case x, hence "including
x", but is not exhaustive and so covers "not limited to x".
David
-----
Regards, Peter
