http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode465 dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:465: private static final Set<String> MAGIC_METHOD_CALLS = new LinkedHashSet<String>(Arrays.asList( On 2011/06/02 17:09:34, zundel wrote:
I feel strongly that "magic" is the wrong terminology.
I see the term "magic" used throughout the code to indicate that
"something
unexpected" is going on. IMHO, this is like saying this is something
that can't
be understood or is difficult to understand. But here that isn't
really the
case. I suggest 'built-in' because we aren't inventing something new
here, it
is a commonly understood concept.
http://www.google.com/search?q=built-in+programming
The use of the term "magic" here is consistent with existing and historical usage in other parts of the GWT compiler and dev mode. You could certainly submit a patch to go through and systematically replace all occurrences of magic with something less mystical. :) http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/diff/1055/dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java#newcode606 dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/UnifyAst.java:606: } What Jason said. It might be ok as a practical matter, but it would go against existing patterns. Only effectively immutable objects (like literals) can be shared that way. Method bodies are mutable. http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1451804/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
