Re: Usage of Static variable name in static context

From:

Daniel Pitts <googlegroupie@coloraura.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:10:52 -0000

Message-ID:

<1188835852.312720.285430@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

On Sep 3, 7:37 am, Lew <l...@lewscanon.com> wrote:

Nigel Wade wrote:

It's best not to use tabs in code [that's posted to Usenet].
Not all news readers handle them in the sameway.
Tabbed code can sometimes be very hard to decipher.

As can top-posting.

Several people have pointed out that the way to refer to a static variable is
by the syntax
Classname.staticVariable

Chris Dollin also pointed out:

Rename the variables to something sensible and the problem evaporates.

This is a very important principle. This answer is not a dodge or hack to
avoid having to say "RangeClass.i". Rather, it's a signpost to good, solid,
maintainable, professional code. Variable names, especially for class and
instance variables, should be self-descriptive. "i" is far too terse for a
good variable name. What is "i"? A range limit? A unique id? A counter?
Something else entirely?

Another dodge for setters is always to name the method argument "value".

   public void setLimit( int value )
   {
     limit = value;
   }

Works great for static or instance methods.

Check out these resources for new Java developers:
<http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/index.html>
<http://www.mindprod.com/jgloss/gettingstarted.html>

In general, <http://www.mindprod.com/> has a ton of great education in it.

--
Lew

I would even go as far as to say that if you make it into a non-static
member, you would be better off.

class RangeClass {
   private int lower;

   public void setLower(int lower) {
      this.lower = lower;
   }
   //etc... so forth
}

If you need to only have one instance of lower shared between all
objects, then look into the singleton pattern. Although, I personally
try to avoid the singleton pattern and use dependency injection where
possible.