2009/11/17 <[email protected]>: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In >> >> https://groups.google.com/group/google-caja-discuss/browse_thread/thread/931773eff44aed0a/30e3182b8df62414?lnk=gst&q=scopeanalyzer#30e3182b8df62414 >> I argued that I think at least a placeholder type is at least useful, >> though we can get as simple or rich as we like. Are you imagining some >> use case where a placeholder type gets in the way? > > Well, you asserted ;) that "I think there is value in at least having a > placeholder type for explanatory purposes, and we can get as rich or as > simple as we like." You could just name the type parameter SCOPE (breaking > the convention of single-character names), or you could document it in the > Javadocs and even point to AbstractScope as an example of such an > implementation. > But either way -- AbstractScope is too heavy to be a placeholder if the goal > of this API is truly to decouple the ScopeListener concerns from the > ScopeAnalyzer.
I did assert that. Do you have any usecase in mind for which a placeholder type would cause problems? > Ihab > -- > Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA >
