+1. Sorry, missed that somehow. On 04.02.2011 09:34:09 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 01:02:47AM +0100, Andreas Delmelle wrote: > > On 02 Feb 2011, at 00:46, adelme...@apache.org wrote: > > > > > Author: adelmelle > > > Date: Tue Feb 1 23:46:38 2011 > > > New Revision: 1066275 > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1066275&view=rev > > > Log: > > > Add type safety to PositionIterator + attempt at javadoc improvement > > > > Note: while going over this, the current situation struck me as slightly > > awkward. > > I am unsure of the original intentions when it was implemented, but the > > fact is that we now have five PositionIterator subclasses, four of which > > override the abstract getPos() and getLM() methods to do exactly the same > > thing... > > Proposed alternative? Make PositionIterator non-abstract, provide default > > implementations for getPos() and getLM(), and use the type directly, > > instead of those scattered StackingIter inner classes in the LMs which are > > basically copies of each other. > > Sounds good to me. Simon > > > Other suggestions to clean this up a bit? > > > > Regards, > > > > Andreas > > --- > >
Jeremias Maerki
