Re: masks and enums

From:

Lew <lew@lewscanon.nospam>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:23:35 -0400

Message-ID:

<UeGdndo2SOiKEjPbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com>

Daniel Pitts wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:39 pm, Wojtek <nowh...@a.com> wrote:

Lew wrote :

Which begs the question of why this particular inner enum is public in the
first place.

Some are public, some are private, some are package level. Depends on
the circumstances and who needs to use it.

The OP's philosophy of always making such enums inner (why not static
nested?) is certainly open to debate. Endless debate, perhaps - the use of
inner classes generally is a black art and controversial to some.

As I understand it:

public enum

is the same as:

public static enum

--
Wojtek :-)

Lew, enums are always "static".

I don't have a hard and fast rule about where I put my enums.
Sometimes they make since on there own, and sometimes they only make
since as "part of" another class. I tend to put them in the first
class that uses them, and then refactor them to package level if it
seems appropriate.

Right, good point. But the question still stands as to why they must be
nested, or when it might be better. That's the black art.

--
Lew