> My position is that as you're working on a chunk of code, clean it up > to whatever you like but DO NOT go changing code just for cosmetic > sake.
Fair enough. Personally, I like the idea that a release has a uniform look and feel, it give me the feeling that I am dealing with a /coherent whole/, not a bunch of unrelated little piles. This is of course, only based on the look of the code, but it seems important to me, especially when the source is open and part of the public face of the product. My 2c, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sandy > McArthur > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 4:03 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] this.foo() vs. foo() > > On 3/7/06, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > > How does the list feel about cleaning up foo()'s to this.foo()'s? > > > > 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 position is that as you're working on a chunk of code, clean it up > to whatever you like but DO NOT go changing code just for cosmetic > sake. > > -- > Sandy McArthur > > "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." > - Thomas Paine > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
