On 20 April 2011 18:24, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Is Pair now good (for a value of consensually agreed good)? > > Good enough, although Stephen noted in ImmutablePair's javadoc that > being non-final, a subclass could add > undesirable/counter-to-expectation behavior. I can't see any reason > why we shouldn't make this class final, particularly as the option > always exists to lift that restriction should someone later provide a > justification for doing so. Does anyone object to this?
+1 > Matt > >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi All: >>> >>> I added a test to verify the default Pair toString behavior. >>> >>> For me to replace our custom Pair class at work, I need to customize the to >>> String behavior. >>> >>> Subclassing ImmutablePair and MutablePair to override toString smells nasty. >>> >>> What about adding a formatString ivar which will be used with the >>> String.format API? >>> >>> -- >>> Thank you, >>> Gary >>> >>> http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ >>> http://garygregory.com/ >>> http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ >>> http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
