But const in C++ is different from final in Java. const means that the whole object state is immutable while final does only mean that the reference (not the referenced objects state) is immutable.
Joern On 14.01.2013, at 21:27, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Coincidentally, here's a read about Doom 3's source code that mentions C++'s > const: > http://kotaku.com/5975610/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-code?post=56177550 > > See also John Carmac's comments at the end. > > Gary > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Tushar Kapila <tgkp...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 final and thank you for interesting reads. This thread and others. > > On 1/11/13, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 19:55, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 4:23 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > > > It all depends on what "..." contains doesn't it? If it's a simple > > one-liner-single-method-call-with-no-args, the "final" may seem overkill, > > but it is more complex it is not IMO. This is all about communicating > > intent. I prefer to use final consistently than making a judgement call on > > whether this or that declaration benefits. Either the value is constant or > > it is not. > > > > > > Yes, it is true that what "..." contains matters. I would argue that in the > > specific case of LogManager that within the static block the declarations > > of managerProps, factoryClass and cl are worthy of being declared final. > > All the rest are unnecessary. However, it is just a matter of opinion and > > not something worth fighting about (but definitely worth discussing just > > because it is interesting). > > > > > > Yes, interesting chat! :) > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > >> > >> While I have no great objection to this I find it to be of minimal value. > >> In general, methods and blocks should be fairly short so the "clarity" > >> declaring these variable final provides isn't of much value to me. > >> > > > > Great point, "clarity" yes, but clarity *of intent* is my goal, which is > > different than clarity of coding in the fewest amount of characters a la C. > > I'm no great believer of "self-documenting" code, but using final helps say > > "this name is not a variable, it is a constant". > > > > > > Interesting argument. But I would argue that none of the local variables > > marked as final (even the variables I noted above) are actually > > "constants". Rather, they are variables whose values do not happen to > > change within the block of code they occur in. From that point of view, > > I'm not really sure I care. If I need to come along tomorrow and cause the > > value to change for whatever reason I'm going to do it. Since that would > > happen within the scope of a few lines of code having the final keyword > > doesn't help me much. > > > > Ralph > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > Regards > Tushar Kapila > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org > > > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
