Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Megginson wrote: > > Stefan Haustein <stefan.haustein@t...> writes: > > > Ok, replace "complicated" by "unconvential". I do not like > > the idea off putting "hidden" meanings to string1 == string2. > > Normaly, someone unfamiliar with the concrete implemention > > would expect that both strings are java-interned. > > Agreed -- while the idea (as far as I understand it) is interesting, > I'm not comfortable with any serious obfuscation, no matter how > clever. I've been coding for money long enough (13 years, believe it > or not) to have seen many examples of this kind of thing, and I cannot > remember a single one that did more good than harm in the long run. > If clarity is the issue, then drop the strings and make the names first class objects and the behaviour will be documentable. Include a factory and the behaviour (for example raw-name-eq, q-name-eq, local-name-eq, or whatever), will be extendable and at the discretion of the end application. ...
|
