Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: james anderson <email@example.com>
- To: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 14:54:09 +0100
David Megginson wrote:
> Stefan Haustein <email@example.com> writes:
> > Ok, replace "complicated" by "unconvential". I do not like
> > the idea off putting "hidden" meanings to string1 == string2.
> > Normaly, someone unfamiliar with the concrete implemention
> > would expect that both strings are java-interned.
> Agreed -- while the idea (as far as I understand it) is interesting,
> I'm not comfortable with any serious obfuscation, no matter how
> clever. I've been coding for money long enough (13 years, believe it
> or not) to have seen many examples of this kind of thing, and I cannot
> remember a single one that did more good than harm in the long run.
If clarity is the issue, then drop the strings and make the names first
class objects and the behaviour will be documentable. Include a factory
and the behaviour (for example raw-name-eq, q-name-eq, local-name-eq, or
whatever), will be extendable and at the discretion of the end application.