Re: Still no typedef

From:

Lew <lew@lewscanon.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:12:28 -0500

Message-ID:

<T7KdnXBHUtWgaMranZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@comcast.com>

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

Arnauld.Loyer@gmail.com writes:

typedef Entity<Node, RendererType> nodeEntity;

For Simplicity, I'll show how to do
typedef java.util.List<java.lang.String> StringList;
This can be done as follows:
class StringList extends java.util.ArrayList<java.lang.String>{}

This, however will still fail, if I wanted to save into
such a StringList-Variable an ArrayList<String> returned
from foreign code.

I guess I understand what people think typedef will do, but I just don't have
such a hard time using List <String>.

And who uses fully-qualified names when they're griping about doing too much
typing?

I really don't even have trouble with Entity< Node, Renderer > either. Or
even Entity <Node, Renderer, Comparator< ? super Node >>. Or Map <Node,
Integer>. To my eye the typedef would just hide the vital information
revealed in the generics.

I would not favor adding "typedef" to the language. Just one more thing that
hides what a type is, making you look elsewhere in the code to understand it,
just because someone is too lazy to (let the IDE) type the generic types.

--
Lew