> The type is "some class with a + method". That really is all that matters.
That's true when determining that the code will compile, but not for determining its meaning. > So I could define a `*` method on my type that fires missiles, it's true! > I could also define a `multiply` method that does the same thing, why is > this any less evil that the well-known symbol for multiplication? The name * is not important. This is not about operator overloading. My original example would be equivalent if I had used multiply. >> You won't find me arguing against adding closures to Java! > > Wait until you see the syntax for checked exceptions :) I received and reported bugs on Gafter's BGGA prototype before it was released (Gafter fixed them all amazingly quickly, an inspiration). I doubt I can be shocked! > I think that java does need an IDE, if only to avoid a lot of the > repetition. > accessors/constructor injecton/equals/hashcode spring to mind here... I don't actually find myself writing or reading as much of that as the blogosphere would make out. Perhaps that's because I'm not using JEE, I don't know. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
