On 10/25/06, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/>
Having said that, its not me thats going to be doing the work, but it does seem valuable to discuss port vs. refactor rather than refactor being a defacto decission and just having an argument on package names.
<snap/> :-) Its not going to be me either, which is why I have (more or less) retired from the conversation. You're right that this isn't about package names, but really whether the intent is to produce a backwards compatible generified collections: * If so, be encumbered with whatever that entails * If not, acknowledge with new collections package It appears to me that the latter might bring more joy to the development of the new collections and result in elegance and entirety of the transformation, but for the reason I mentioned a couple of paragraphs ago, my opinion is not as important as some others. -Rahul P.S.- Regarding your Collections#max question, using casts like you suggest compromises the upper bound of T in the signature, and doesn't convey the correct information to the reader (and arguably more importantly, to the compiler, which consequently cannot guarantee the author-intended type safety, at which point the value proposition of using generics diminishes greatly)
Niall
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
