Hi Andreas,

Andreas L Delmelle a écrit :
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 18:30, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>>> -    public int getValue() {
>>> -        log.error("getValue() called on " + enumProperty + " number");
>>> -        return 0;
>> That may be discussed, but I have strong feelings against that. If the
>> method shouldn’t be called, why not throw an IllegalStateException or
>> so?
> Good idea, much better than the above! Didn't quite occur to me to do
> that. Then again, in case you didn't notice: those lines are removed...(?)

Ok, I isolated the wrong snippet... Go below in the commit message, and
you’ll find plenty of such lines with plus instead of minus :-P

>> All that said... if most methods of the Numeric interface aren’t
>> applicable to EnumNumber, should that class still be considered as
>> a Numeric object? Does that make sense to cast an EnumNumber into
>> a Numeric?
> Well, apparently, a long time ago, someone felt it necessary to have a
> Property type that stored an enum but in the end it's only a number
> (values like "no-limit").
> The idea of an EnumNumber itself always seemed somewhat ugly to me, but
> I never took the time to come up with a decent alternative.

So we can consider that this class will eventually be removed/changed?
Then this hack is more acceptable. What about a “TODO this is ugly and
shall be removed”?


Reply via email to