Mayeul wrote:
Paka Small wrote:
Lew wrote:
How exactly do you imagine that this proves a method is a class instance?
All your code proves is that there exists a class instance that can describe
and invoke a particular method. There is nothing in your code that shows, let
alone proves "beyond any doubt", that a method is an instance of a class. It
couldn't, because a Java method is not an instance of a class.
Clearly the code shows that setMethod is an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method
Indeed, it certainly does.
and that a method of a class is actually
assigned to setMethod in this statement:
Not even close, Paka. How do you continue to get this wrong?
You have been shown the truth. You've been shown the documentation for the
truth, about which you got very snarky indeed: "I'm too lazy to read the
documentation but I'm going to argue for the wrong answer anyway."
setMethod =
baseObjectClass.getJavaClass().getMethod(this.getSetMethodName(), new
Class[]{this.type});
No, it does not show anything of the sort.
setMethod is never assigned a method (and a method can never be assigned
to anything anyway.)
As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Repeatedly.
Here you show setMethod is assigned an instance of the class
java.lang.reflect.Method. Instances of a class, whatever the class, are
never methods. And methods are never instances of any class, whatever
the class.
As you have been told before, Paka. Repeatedly. Why don't you just break down
and read the documentation?
Summary: What your code proves is that a variable points to an instance of a
class. It does not show that a method is an instance of a class. At no point
does your code show any treatment of any method as a class instance.
Get this right or get out of programming, Paka. "20 years of professional
software development experience" is only worth something if you let your
experience teach you something. Time to start learning, Paka.
If so, the matter is easily settled. I don't know the total combined