On Oct 15, 2017 16:34, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:45:09 -0500, Matt Sicker wrote: > Assertion classes are just containers for static methods. Using "import > static" is the only way in Java to import the individual methods as if the > class itself were a package. Also, doing this is pretty common when using > the Assert class as all its methods are prefixed with "assert" anyways. > It's not because something is widespread that it should be emulated. Is there any good reason to use "import static"? [Saving the typing of 7 characters cannot be one of them.] It can (and does) happen that "assert..." methods are defined on a per project basis, and nothing is gained when the reader has to check the top of the file to be sure of what class is actually used. My point was just that rather than cleaning up, the commit was obfuscating (even if so little) the source code. I prefer the other way around. :-) I do as well. Gary YMMV, Gilles On 15 October 2017 at 13:44, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 12:22:13 +0200, Pascal Schumacher wrote: >> >> Just for consistency. >>> >>> >> Consistency is fine. ;-) >> >> All almost all tests already used static >> >>> imports, so I adjusted the few that did not. >>> >>> >> It's the use of "import static" which I was questioning. >> >> Gilles >> >> >> >> -Pascal >>> >>> Am 15.10.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Gilles: >>> >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 09:34:04 +0000 (UTC), pascalschumac...@apache.org >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Repository: commons-text >>>>> Updated Branches: >>>>> refs/heads/master 51645b4f0 -> 8f7d0494d >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> always use static imports for assertion methods >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>> >>>> Gilles >>>> >>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
