No, you were completely right — either it should support both the
primitive and the wrapper _or_ we need to document why it does not. I
was prepared to say we'd do the latter, since I didn't want to deal
with the differences between the two, but it turns out there _are_ no
differences, save for the `typeof` problem.

If the fix weren't so simple I'd have pushed back hard.


On Oct 8, 2:15 pm, Tom Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Andrew Dupont wrote:
> > I shall end the shitstorm here and now.
> > ....
> > ... he probably can't think of a single case in which it's
> > _useful_ to use the wrapper objects instead of the primitives they
> > wrap.
> Honestly, I can't either.  I don't see any reason to use the object  
> wrappers in the first place, and would thus never encounter the issue.  
> (I would go a step further, and suggest use of the object wrappers to  
> be "less-good" design because of the extra code required to use 'em.)
> At a higher level, the question I wanted to raise is the balance  
> between principles of good design (e.g. POLS) and requiring a use case  
> to be common enough before any changes are made--because there should  
> be a balance; one view is not always correct.  That wasn't the  
> discussion I was hearing; that's why I joined the conversation.
> I'll try and shut up now.  =)
> =====
> “Always be the worst guy in every band you’re in. If you’re the best  
> guy there, you need to be in a different band. And I think that works  
> for almost everything that’s out there as well.” ~Pat Metheny  (h/t  
> "Pragmatic Thinking & Learning: Refactor your wetware")
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to