On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Mandy Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nit: maybe better to merge two constructors to explicitly specify if it wants
> to skip the parameter validations (not sure if there is any reason for the
> rtype and ptypes parameter order is different in the two ctors)
>
> 107 private MethodType(Class<?> rtype, Class<?>[] ptypes, boolean
> trusted) {
> 118 private MethodType(Class<?>[] ptypes, Class<?> rtype) {
The backwards constructor is dangerous since it doesn't check parameters; I
don't want it to be used by accident.
There isn't a good design pattern for this; I want a constructor named
"fake_MethodType_for_table_probe".
I suppose I could have used as leading argument of type Unsafe to mark the
condition.
A flag does not seem clear enough. I don't want to factor together checked and
unchecked versions of the constructor.
I will add a comment about the odd constructor. Should I add a strange extra
argument instead of swapping the parameters, or is that overkill?
Thanks for the review.
— John
