> From: Matt Benson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Phil Weighill-Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I personally think the use of "final" for method > > parameters is "a good > > thing" - it reminds me of that great C++ feature > > "const" (which was > > actually far more sophisticated and useful, and > > strangely is a Java > > reserved keyword). > > I read the sample chapter Kevin pointed out, and I > understood the points made. But if you look at the > issue from a different perspective, the basic > take-away message is that "final" should be used as a > crutch. The obvious response to that statement is > then "what's wrong with that?" Nothing, I suppose, > but there is unit testing to help avoid the kinds of > mistakes warned against in the chapter. I suppose > it's all a matter of taste. The > compiler-optimization-based conditional compilation > was interesting, but personally I would rather be able > to throw switches without touching java code. >
For more good and fashionable writing test cases can be. There is no better way to remove the posibility of bug, than having the compiler semantically verify what was written. If people think otherwise, then maybe they should try writing all your parameters as type Object and make the testcases check that you are doing the right thing on every case. ;-) The more the compiler can check for you the better. Jose Alberto --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
