patch to String.intern
Tom Tromey
tromey@redhat.com
Wed Mar 21 13:22:00 GMT 2001
>> I'd prefer not to do this, since to me it seems uglier. I prefer
>> not to use functions that aren't attached to a class.
Per> Why? If a function is local to a file, why not just keep it
Per> local to the file? What good is making it a method - it just
Per> clutters up String.java and String.h and the String Class object
Per> for no reason at all.
I prefer it because I think the unit of encapsulation is the class and
not the file. On occasion I've had to change a static function into a
static method in order to access private class data -- using `friend'
is just ugly.
In this particular case I agree it isn't super-critical. Go ahead and
change it if you want. We probably won't have to change it back.
>> Also, pointer-to-member isn't an issue for a static method.
Per> That I think is an C++ implementation issue.
According to "The C++ Programming Language, 3rd Edition" by
Stroustrup, section 15.5 "Pointers to Members":
A static member isn't associated with a particular object, so a
pointer to a static member is simply an ordinary pointer.
Tom
More information about the Java-patches
mailing list