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