On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:36:31 -0300, Jochen Kemnade
<jochen.kemn...@eddyson.de> wrote:
Hi,
Am 28.05.2014 16:05, schrieb Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo:
I guess it'll be rare to actually analyze the mutability of an object
and not of its class, but I can't see why not. :)
I don't mean to split hairs, but we always want to determine the
mutability of an object. Mostly, we'll use its class to do that however.
Agreed
[...] I see no need to put the Tapestry-provided first.
Alright, I'll just put one first that handles null, so we don't have to
bother with that later.
Nice catch. Null is immutable. :D
Btw., if we use isImmutable(Object) instead of isMutable(Object) (why do
I always start writing the opening paren before the func... err.. method
name),
Lisp feelings? :P
we can even use a Chain of Command (remember, true will exit the chain).
:-)
Definitely a chain of command. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Tapestry, Java and Hibernate consultant and developer
http://machina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
