Re: Prettiness of Java statics classes: dropping the "make"

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 11, 2008, at 11:52, Mark Miller wrote:
>  > The important constraint on employing this switch is that the class
>  > be non-instantiatiable, so a safej file turning on this switch much
>  > not also enable any constructors or instance members.
>
>  I don't see why this is necessary. The worst result is poor naming,
>  which we can't defend against anyway, and so shouldn't pretend to.

Since safej files are within our TCB, defense per se isn't relevant.
Avoid poor naming and other forms of tempting accident is.



>  > I would also prefer to constrain such classes to be final.
>
>  It seems to me that a non-final statics-only class corresponds
>  roughly to single E objects with delegation:
>
>    def foo { ... }
>
>    def bar extends <import:foo> { ... }
>
>  I don't mean to say that there are sensible uses for this, but only
>  that the restriction does not seem to be justified.

Makes sense.


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

 Cheers,
 --MarkM