On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 08:57 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
yep. the reflection classes are definitely in-scope.On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:...BTW. I agree that the [lang] charter would need to be reworked to clarify the inclusion of 'reflection'."This proposal is to create a package of Java utility classes for the classes that are in java.lang's hierarchy, or are considered to be so standard as to justify existence in java.lang." java.lang.reflect :) The proposal, nice and umbrella-like as it is, refers to anything that provides Utils for the java.lang.reflect classes.
i think that people would be less worried about lang expanding into a grand, uber-utility framework if the second part of the charter could be tightened up a little.
"or are considered to be so standard as to justify existence in java.lang.
"
can be interpreted fairly broadly.
AFAIK no one's objected to the scope of the released version.
of the newer packages, reflect is clearly in-scope but there is some debate about whether it's the best place for those classes.
whether functor is in scope is debatable. no one objected at the time but it would be possible to create a reasoned argument that they are 'standard'
but not 'so standard' as to justify inclusion.
(not that i'm advocating moving them out. i just think we need to think about these things.)
- robert
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
