On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote:
> > > > You know that Java has no out variables (as it is call by value) and the > > final identifier does not make an object read only. So in fact having > final > > modifiers would misslead you even more. > > > > The last sentence is a bit of theory. I don't see that to be true for me at > least. > > Following some of the arguments in this thread declarations like "const" or > "let" are just noise. I could say the same thing about the stupid > "override" annotation everyone keeps using. Taking that a step (or rather a > few steps) further it makes you wonder why some people here prefer a > statically typed language like java over dynamic ones. > > Anyway - I do think "final" has value. Not sure I would want to have it > everywhere though. > But the point is: everyone has a different opinion on this. > > I have a hard time seeing value in this thread unless there is a more > concrete objective or question to answer. > These could be... > > "Are stylistic commits acceptable?" > "Do we want to enforce a common code style?" > Some components already do explicitly define a style through Checkstyle and PMD or implicitly with the general guideline of "follow the style of the file you are in" I've seen listed on a guideline page. Some Apache projects (HC for example IIRC) cause the build to fail is a Checkstyle rule is broken. Gary > > Maybe answer those first? > > cheers, > Torsten > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
