> Will this.foo() and foo() always result in the same behaviour, > particularly > when you're dealing with overridden methods? I ask because I am unsure!
Yes. I consider the missing receiver a syntactic shortcut which only creates an exception to the simple "object.message()" syntax. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: James Ring [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:46 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] this.foo() vs. foo() > > Hi Gary, > > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 10:35, Gary Gregory wrote: > > Hello: > > > > This could be a religious issue... look out! > > > > In our product code bases, we use the "this.foo()" convention. The > > argument being, that in object oriented programming, a message is sent > > to an object, always. > > Will this.foo() and foo() always result in the same behaviour, > particularly > when you're dealing with overridden methods? I ask because I am unsure! > > > How does the list feel about cleaning up foo()'s to this.foo()'s? > > I personally think that foo() is just fine, especially when calling > private > helper methods. > > > I am willing to do this clean up, actually, I'll let Eclipse do it ;) > > > > Or, we can leave it all as is, with some classes doing it one way and > > others the other way. > > My (unimportant, meaningless ;) vote is to leave it. > > > Gary > > Regards, > James > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
