This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Hi, On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 17:28 +0100, Michael Koch wrote: > > > + /** > > > + * XXX: Currently not implemented. > > > + */ > > > + protected boolean hasChildren; > > > > Eh. What does it? If it isn't implemented, why do we have a dummy > > field? (no more stubs!) Could you at least document that it always > > returns false. > > Its no stub. Its this way intentional. In our implementation it always > returns false but even this is not guaranteed as this field is not > used according to SUNs javadocs. The problem is that 2rd party > software might use it already. But they have to take care about the > value of the field themself. Ugh. I see. How bogus. We should explicitly state that in the documentation: * Currently not set or used by this class. * Don't depend on this field. * It might be used and set in later versions of this class. Sigh, Mark
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |