Uwe Schindler wrote: > Just because I came along a lot of new Generics declarations: > How should we handle generics parameters in the source code? There are more > possibilities: > > 1. Map<ClassA, ClassB> > 2. Map <ClassA, ClassB> > 3. Map<ClassA,ClassB> > > Sun's Java code in src.jar of their JDK always uses (3)[only in some special > cases, when it gets complicated, like when ? and generics inside generics > are used), which I also prefer and I used it that way during my last > patches. But e.g. Kay Kay used (1) in his original patches (I also > transformed it to 3). > > I prefer (3) because the generics are not like function parameters and are > itself only identifiers never expressions (they are more annotations to the > class name) and in my opinion are part of the class name used. Because of > that, there is also no space between base class and "<". As it is part of > the declaration and the type itsself, it should be compact. > > Other opinions? > > +1 for (3) from my side > > ----- > Uwe Schindler > H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > +1 for (3). The eclipse formatting settings floating around for lucene use (1) though - +1 for changing them ;)
-- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
