--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We've been doing the same with PR_ (properties) > and > > FO_ (FO's) for quite some time. > > To avoid a name conflict somewhere. >
Yes, I was wondering why you didn't originally do that for the enumeration constants as well. I like their self-documenting value in particular though. > How about having 3 interfaces: 'Properties', > 'Elements' and 'Enums' > which contains the constants without any prefix. And > then decide that > these interfaces are never implemented, but the > constants are always > accessed using the interface name: > Enums.TRUE > > That would keep the searchability and perhaps even > help us when (if) we > move to typesafe enums. > -0. I prefer the simplicity of the current method, and like the way the code looks as-is. But I can easily see how others may view this solution as more professional. Glen
