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

Marek Kozieł develop4lasu at gmail.com
Mon Mar 30 23:40:49 PDT 2009

W dniu 31 marca 2009 03:06 użytkownik Gabriel Belingueres <belingueres at gmail.com> napisał:

Why? final a = 1; // static type is int final b = new Integer(6); // static type is Integer If this is confusing for someone: final c = 1 + new Integer(7); then declare it as usual.

I just think that in this form solution will be easier to use.

Assuming that getLocalization() returns a Localization, then the whole point is that you don't need the cast; otherwise this feature is of doubtful utility. The variable type is known at compile type to be a Localization.

"o is Object" for any reason, if it would be Localization then problem would not exists.

OTOH, if the getLocalization() returns an Object, then final o = (Localization) some.getBoo().getLocalization(); might throw a ClassCastException at runtime, which is a pity because this is a new feature. If you want to risk to receive a ClassCastException, then declare it as usual: final Localization o =  (Localization) some.getBoo().getLocalization();

What for if we already casted it ?

IMHO, type casts should be forbidden, or at least discouraged.

I can agree a little.

-- Pozdrowionka. / Regards. Lasu aka Marek Kozieł

http://lasu2string.blogspot.com/

More information about the coin-dev mailing list