Gary Gregory wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM, 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? >> > > Please do not make the class final. > > The first thing I want to do is dump my custom pair class and plug this > one in. But, in order to do so, I need to override toString(). > > Which gives me another custom class... so why do I want to do this? Hm... > good question. Until I play with it some more, I am not sure which way to > go for my use case. Just don't lock me out ;)
Couldn't you use in that case Pair<T,U> directly? - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
