Re: Joe-E

On 04/29/2010 07:51 PM, David Wagner wrote:
>> The JoeE.isSubTypeOf() mechanism is not adequate for what I'm doing, as
>> I have to cast it to a known powerless type to avoid having JoeE flag
>> an error.  Hence, as near as I can see, it is necessary to enumerate
>> the types as I have done.
>>      
> If we are going to put PowerlessHolder in the Joe-E libraries, then
> it doesn't need to pass the Joe-E static verifier.  If we're going
> to do that, I'd prefer that PowerlessHolder be implemented using
> JoeE.isSubTypeOf(), rather than hardcoding classes that are honorarily
> Powerless in its source code.  The definitive source of information
> about honoraries is the taming database.  It doesn't seem like great
> software engineering to duplicate that information in the source code
> of Joe-E libraries; I'm concerned about the risk that the two lists
> will get out of sync.
>    
I agree. This occurred to me shortly after I shut down my
computer yesterday afternoon.