I'm not terribly bothered by eliminating magic numbers. I've gotten myself into the habit as part of my coding style. I personally think it makes the code easier to understand. I would not consider the shortcoming of the JRE a reason for us not to use what is generally considered good coding style.
Steven Caswell [EMAIL PROTECTED] a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:41 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: [lang] StringUtils.ordinalIndexOf() and INDEX_NOT_FOUND > > > Hello, > > I want to outline two slightly different -1 cases but I am > also willing to drop the constant. > > (1) -1 is returned by the JRE String APIs and the JRE makes > no constant available. The fact that no JRE constant is > available is a shortcoming of the JRE, IMO. When Stephen > writes "Personally I wouldn't use INDEX_NOT_FOUND, as -1 is > so well known.", I tend to agree, since I /guess/ we are all > used to reading test conditions like "if (string.api() != -1) ...". > > In this case INDEX_NOT_FOUND addresses a shortcoming in the > JRE (I claim). > > (2) The second case is for our StringUtils APIs where /we/ > "return -1", clearly a magic number, where I think we would > be better served with "return INDEX_NOT_FOUND". > > So after distinguishing between these two cases, is > INDEX_NOT_FOUND still uncomfortable in all cases? > > Thanks, > Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven Caswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 17:33 > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [lang] StringUtils.ordinalIndexOf() and INDEX_NOT_FOUND > > > > Unless you want to be as nerdy as I am and do it so that checkstyle > > doesn't complain. > > > > > > Steven Caswell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > a.k.a Mungo Knotwise of Michel Delving > > "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them..." > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 6:22 PM > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: [lang] StringUtils.ordinalIndexOf() and > INDEX_NOT_FOUND > > > > > > > > > Personally I wouldn't use INDEX_NOT_FOUND, as -1 is so well known. > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Gary Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:22 PM > > > Subject: [lang] StringUtils.ordinalIndexOf() and INDEX_NOT_FOUND > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > I've added StringUtils.ordinalIndexOf() and introduced a > > > new constant > > > > StringUtils.INDEX_NOT_FOUND = -1. Currently, only > > > ordinalIndexOf uses > > > > this constant. > > > > > > > > I would like to get a fell if folks think that replacing (where > > > > appropriate), the -1 magic number usage in StringUtils > with this > > > > constant > > > is > > > > a good idea or refactoring gone wild. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
