On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de>wrote:
> 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? > If I use a pair directly, then the call site has to know about the toString argument, which I want to hide in a subclass. I could have a MyPairUtils that hides it instead I suppose. Not the prettiest but it avoids subclassing I suppose. Still, don't lock me out from trying :) Gary > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
