On 4/5/07, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
my preference - however slight - is to avoid specifying the public. In other words, if I'm writing the code, I won't put it in, but if someone else does, I don't consider it an issue. whatever others decide is fine with me. can't we just leave it open to the preference of the original author?
Actually, I would argue for consistency over any particular option. In other words, it is more important to me to have all of the interfaces either specify public or not specify public than for my preferred option (no 'public' modifier) to "win". Having a mixture of 'public' and no 'public' is even more likely to make people stop and wonder why it is used in some places but not others. -- Martin Cooper Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 4/5/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > 2. The "public" redundant modifier is declared illegal in that >> > > checkstyle file, but I think that it is not so bad. >> > >> > >> > Here I disagree. IMHO, using 'public' in interfaces demonstrates a >> lack of >> > clarity. It constitutes "noise" in the interface definition that >> hinders >> > rapid comprehension. When someone reads through a set of interfaces and >> > sees >> > 'public' scattered around, they're likely to stop and wonder if the >> author >> > had some purpose to specifying 'public' that they should try to >> > understand, >> > when in reality the author was simply not thinking clearly enough to >> > translate their thoughts into accurate interface definitions. We should >> > always strive for maximum communication bandwidth, and not clutter the >> > code >> > with things that readers will trip over and have to stop and wonder >> about. > > -0 hindering rapid comprehension is *highly* subjective. it depends > on what you are trying to comprehend and what you are used to. in > this instance that is apparently different for you and me. :) > >> >> Interesting. I've always preferred to be explicit and express things >> that >> are true by default. > > agreed. i also like that the method signature looks like it does in > the implementation class. i prefer the consistency... > >> For example, I use "this." a lot (though probably not >> consistently enough to communicate anything). I can see your point >> but the >> lack of the public modifier would "hinder rapid comprehension" for me, >> just >> because I'm used to seeing it there. (To be real honest I didn't >> realize it >> was defaulted until I read this - though it makes sense). >> >> So should we cater to those who don't know the language well enough or >> cater >> to those who prefer language purit? Personally, I still prefer the >> former >> because I like being explicit, but I won't die on that hill. I'm >> willing to >> be convinced otherwise :-) > > i don't really care. to me it's a fairly trivial preference. and > whatever "hindrance" the lack of "public" might be to my comprehension > is entirely negligible. :) > >> Greg >> >
