Hi Tom, Stef,
I'm sorry if I've offended, I do agree that there are cases when its better
to have the value than the constant hiding it. Like I said before - those
will be cases when the constants were badly chosen in the first place, but
sometimes that happens and needs to be changed. In your example, for
instance, why was there a variable named HELLO_WORLD in the first place?
That seems to be like naming an integer constant:
final int FOUR = 4; // the number four
Confusing and redundant.
However as you say, the best thing to do with code like this is to "inline"
the variables. Even if this could almost always be done with search and
replace, I take back the -1.
Avi
"Thomas Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This seems to me to promote the bad programming habit of using values
> > instead of constants.
>
> No, this is wrong. A better example:
>
> ======================= Example A =========================
> public class Test {
>
> private static final String HELLO_WORLD = "Hello world";
>
> public static void main(String[] arguments) {
> System.out.println(HELLO_WORLD);
> }
> }
> ======================= Example B =========================
> public class Test {
>
> public static void main(String[] arguments) {
> System.out.println("Hello world");
> }
> }
> ===========================================================
>
> Now decide, what is better readable.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:59:02 +0300, "Avi Rosenschein"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > This seems to me to promote the bad programming habit of using values
> > instead of constants. The whole purpose of the constant is to increase
> > readability, and to ease maintenance by making future changes only to
the
> > initialization and not every place you used that value. If you are
getting
> > rid of the constant in order to improve readability, you probably aren't
> > choosing good constants in the first place. Generally I would think the
best
> > thing would be just to rename the variable.
> >
> > Also, to give it a name like "inline constants" seems to imply that
there is
> > some efficiency benefit to be gained by "inlining" constants in Java -
which
> > in this case there isn't.
> >
> > --Avi
> >
> > "Thomas Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Just curious. Why would you want to do this? The compiler puts the
> > > > constant value in place of the constant "variable" so there is no
> > > > performance gain.
> > >
> > > Why we use the refactorings at all? To make the code more readable!
> > >
> > > > What you appear to want is that YES is like a #def in C/C++ and is
> > > > inlined. This is not necessary in Java.
> > >
> > > As the name already suggests, the example is just an example.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:33:43 +1200, Pete Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just curious. Why would you want to do this? The compiler puts the
> > > > constant value in place of the constant "variable" so there is no
> > > > performance gain.
> > > >
> > > > What you appear to want is that YES is like a #def in C/C++ and is
> > > > inlined. This is not necessary in Java.
> > > >
> > > > Pete
> > > >
> > > > Oh yeah, -1 :-)
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Singer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since months, I would like to have the option to inline
constants --
> > > > > simply replacing their usage with their initialisation...
> > > > >
> > > > > Example:
> > > > >
> > > > > public static final Option YES = Option.YES;
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > setOption(YES);
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > ==>
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > > setOption(Option.YES);
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, I can do it with cut'n'paste, but I'm able to do each
> > > > > refactoring with the help of cut'n'paste.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Eap-features mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.jetbrains.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
