[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Eclipse 3.0 and unimplemented methods proposal

From: Andrew John Hughes
Subject: Re: Eclipse 3.0 and unimplemented methods proposal
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 16:51:58 +0100

On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 04:21, Casey Marshall wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew John Hughes <address@hidden> writes:
> Andrew> Anyway, the floor is over to you guys.  Be gentle ;-) --
> Andrew> Andrew :-)
> I think this got as close to an authoritative answer/consensus as we
> can expect to get on this issue:
> <>
> Stub methods bad. No biscuit.
Aaah -- the change of subject made me miss this one.  I do see this as a
bit of a step backwards -- for a stub to have been entered, the
appropriate method signature must have been found, coded and committed. 
Also, its mere presence means that the method can be documented and
tested against using Mauve, as well as called from other parts of
Classpath.  What is shouldn't do is just die silently.

Anyway, I'm happy to put in the yards to turn the nulls into whichever
of these most people feel happy with -- just be prepared...

Andrew :-)
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]