+1 for (3) Michael
On 10/17/09 3:55 AM, 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
