PROPOSAL: 'final' without explicit type (update) (original) (raw)

Marek Kozieł develop4lasu at gmail.com
Mon Mar 30 16:09:21 PDT 2009

W dniu 31 marca 2009 00:45 użytkownik Gabriel Belingueres <belingueres at gmail.com> napisał:

Hi Marek:

- VariableInitializer type is neither primitive nor Object.  --> primitive : they should not be mixed with Object-s to easy.  --> Object : when object type is Object, we mostly deal with situation 'Unknown type', so this should not be hidden. I still don't get why it is so bad to do something like this: final a = 1; // static type is int or final o = new Object(); // static type is Object, no doubt I still don't see the point on not making this feature more orthogonal (unless some convincing argument is presented against it.)

For primitives I would prefer: primitive a = 1; // a is int / short / byte rather than: final a = 1; // static type is int

Primitives represent other level of abstraction and mixing them will make people to be confused (more or less).

final o = new Object(); // in this form it's ok

here I see problem: final o = some.getBoo().getLocalization(); // o is Object

For some reason we did not ensured valid type to be returned, so we should care about it while declaring 'o', or say that we do not care: final o = (Localization) some.getBoo().getLocalization(); final Object o = some.getBoo().getLocalization();

If we allow final to be ANY type, then backing to declaration will be required just to make correction, this will piss off programmers.

So primitives and Object-s are special types and should be handled in this way.

-- Pozdrowionka. / Regards. Lasu aka Marek Kozieł

http://lasu2string.blogspot.com/

More information about the coin-dev mailing list