I agree - using the compiler to detect errors is such a
stupid idea. Real
programmers dont need that.
Real programmers don't use compilers...
java is compiled whereas JavaScript is interpreted.
May be we should relax your affirmation ;)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:07, Daniel Rall wrote:
Ceki Glc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
I agree - using the compiler to detect errors is such a stupid idea. Real
On 1/10/02 2:54 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:07, Daniel Rall wrote:
Ceki Glc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
I agree - using
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:59, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 1/10/02 2:54 AM, Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:07, Daniel Rall wrote:
Ceki Glc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:16, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 1/10/02 6:11 AM, Stephane Bailliez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
Real programmers don't use compilers...
It looks like there were needs for some
Stephane Bailliez wrote:
I can understand why:
public void setSomething(Object something){
something = something;
}
Another solution is
public void setSomething(Object something) {
this.something = something;
}
- Sam Ruby
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sam Ruby wrote:
Stephane Bailliez wrote:
I can understand why:
public void setSomething(Object something){
something = something;
}
Another solution is
public void setSomething(Object something) {
this.something = something;
}
Just beware of this bug:
public void
From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Just beware of this bug:
public void setSomething(Object somthing) { // something misspelled
this.something = something;
}
Don't you use a spell checker on your code?
Actually this problem is one reason why it is better to use single
to similar spellings and misspellings and so.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:26 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding styles...
Sam Ruby wrote:
Stephane
Craig R. McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:27:52 -0500
From: Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding
Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
The problem with
public void setSomething(Object something){
this.something = something;
}
is
public void
At 07:07 PM 1/9/02 -0800, you wrote:
Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession.
Agreed.
The problem with
public void setSomething(Object something){
this.something
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:26, Steve Downey wrote:
Your javac has a configuration setting for the class names of inner
classes? Although the inner classes use a $ embedded, rather than as a lead
character. It's a similar issue.
And whats that got to do with the price of fish? $ is not valid in
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:53 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding styles...
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 11:26, Steve Downey wrote:
Your javac has a configuration setting for the class
On 1/5/02 11:22 PM, Steve Downey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In what way does it make it acceptable for them to write poor code? For
example, the JSP spec reserves _jsp, jsp, _jspx and jspx for identifiers
used in the classes generated by the page compiler. What other way do you
propose to
Stephane Bailliez typed the following on 09:42 AM 1/4/2002 +
We had that discussion once on Commons, and many people liked the
underscore convention.
I can understand why:
public void setSomething(Object something){
something = something;
}
It is one of my major source of error
-Original Message-
From: Kief Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It is one of my major source of error when not using the '_' and I
have seen the error several times along with variable naming
gymnastics to avoid the this. people would use aSomething or
On 1/4/02 3:48 AM, Endre Stølsvik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
| It is amazing to me...with all the discussion about coding styles and
| following them, we still have people committing code that doesn't follow
| what rules we do have...
|
| on
At 10:44 04.01.2002 +, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Kief Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It is one of my major source of error when not using the '_' and I
have seen the error several times along with variable naming
gymnastics to avoid the this. people would use
Hey Jon,
It is not amazing. It is normal. The paragraph that you quoted says:
All Java Language source code in the repository must be written in
conformance to the Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language
as published by Sun. However, some projects may decide to override
As a point of order:
The use of this is recommended by the Elements of Java Style, which is
cited in the Commons charter.
Though, I have myself been victimized by the trap Ceki mentions.
-Ted.
Ceki Gülcü wrote:
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
People who repeatedly forget to type this represent a minority and
should perhaps look to exercise a different profession. The problem
You are right, but I think you know perfectly what kind of horrors you can
find
Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html
All Java Language source code in the repository must be written in
conformance to the Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language as
published by Sun.
-jon
Sun ? ;-)
I thought it was agreed a long time ago that
i'd just like to point out that i didn't write that bit of code (but
neither did i correct it).
personally speaking, i'm not going to risk having patches vetoed because i
try to correct the original author's coding style.
any committer who has the time and energy to fight is very welcome to
on 1/4/02 8:05 AM, Bob Jamison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jakarta.apache.org != Sun
That isn't the comparison that we are making here.
-jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:35 04.01.2002 -0800, you wrote:
on 1/4/02 3:28 AM, Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All Java Language source code in the repository must be written in
conformance to the Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language
as published by Sun. However, some projects may decide to
PM
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding styles...
i'd just like to point out that i didn't write that bit of code (but
neither did i correct it).
personally speaking, i'm not going to risk having patches vetoed because i
try to correct the original author's coding style.
any committer who has
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:19, Steve Downey wrote:
http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html#367
| Variable names should not start with underscore _ or dollar sign $
| characters, even though both are allowed.
The _instanceVariable and also the __staticVariable idea
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Erik Hatcher wrote:
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:27:52 -0500
From: Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More abuse of coding styles...
Rule #1 from The Elements of Java
29 matches
Mail list logo