On Saturday 06 August 2005 00:17, Ceki Gülcü wrote: > Although technically possible to fold the Object[] argument in to > Object, wouldn't it be clearer to users if the Object[] form was > available *explicitly* as an additional method? > > What proportion of java developers do not know that Object[] can be > cast as an Object? If as I suspect many developers ignore the > possibility, wouldn't the cost of the extra 8 (=2 x 4) methods offset > by the gain in clarity?
I think I possibly can agree that it makes sense. I am normally pro-clarity :o) Interesting to note that 8 new methods here == "not much for a bit of documentation in code", and a single convenience method over at OSGi folks is a "no no", with the argument that all constrained implementations will suffer as a result. Cheers Niclas _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
