On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Bruce Johnson <br...@google.com> wrote:
> @John: I totally agree that's a risk, but then again, the situation you > describe would arguably be a bug anyway -- or at least I'd call it > under-specified. Indeed, I hope that in people's paranoia to avoid those > situations, that they are more thoughtful about the types they hand around > in their API, using the exactly the right semantics for the situation at > hand. > > And, of course, there are always tradeoffs in design. The design of these > classes to enable people who are coding things correctly and clearly to not > suffer one iota of overhead for which they don't get commensurate value. > That's same reasoning is why it will use assertions instead of exceptions. > How about a big red warning on the freeze() saying if you are going to call this method you shouldn't hand out the unfrozen object to anyone else? -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
