Guys, if I know which magic numbers you are discussing, I believe they
are intended to allow a "weight" to be assigned to the action of
calling a given method(or constructor) with a given set of parameters:
 the smaller the weight, the more directly assignable the parameters
are to the method being tested.  We can thus determine, among several
potential matching signatures, which matches the most closely and
therefore which we expect the compiler would have decided was meant by
an equivalent call made from actual source code.  My apologies if I've
completely missed the point of the discussion as I've only been
following loosely.

HTH,
Matt

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Benedikt Ritter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 30.01.2012 20:50, schrieb Simone Tripodi:
>
>>> Sadly nothing is mentioned about the said magic numbers. So we are at the
>>> start again. Any ideas, how to handle this issue? :)
>>
>>
>> which issue? is there any weird behavior introduced by the procedure?
>>
>
> No, everything seems to work properly. But I don't understand it and that
> bugs me ;-)
>
>
>> anyway, we don't have any chance to understand where/how they come
>> from, so just extract them as constants, it that has worked from '04
>> will continue doing it, unless a bug surprisingly comes up.
>>
>
> okay, you will see a patch for that sometime in the next days.
>
> buona notte,
> Benedikt
>
>
>> TIA,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]

Reply via email to