Had they used for (item _in_ list) then they would have introduced a
new "in" keyword and you'd have to adjust code to compile properly that
used variables and such of that name. There is a pretty strong mandate
to not introduce new keywords in new features.
Erik
On Apr 1, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Karthik Abram wrote:
Generics are no better with their awful syntax. It looks like the
typing I
save in typecasting is more than destroyed by ugly syntax. Also, what
is
"for (Item a : list)"? C# scores +1 for "for (Item a in list)" and +1
for
event-dispatch model.
-----Original Message-----
From: sales [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 4:04 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Tapestry and Java 5.0
Henri Dupre wrote:
On Apr 1, 2005 12:31 PM, Bruno Haas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Is it a good idea at this point in time to rely on Java 5.0 ?
I'm developping using many new Java 5 features and I'm surprised at
how nicely the new features integrate with existing code. I really
like the generics, they allow you to write a much nicer code
especially with collections.
Thanks for reminding me to check out the list of new features. All
good.
Except for varargs - how did anyone let that awful C-programmers-sop
concept through! How to bastardize Java in 1 easy step.
dd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
