Viktor Klang wrote: > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Viktor Klang wrote: >> Actually guys, referential equality is kind of retarded, so the >> >> Map<String,Integer>.class == Map<Foo,Bar>.class >> >> example is bad. >> >> However, >> >> Map<String,Integer>.class.equals(Map<Foo,Bar>.class) SHOULD >> return false > No, it MUST not -- else loads of things break. > > > If you want to make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs... Yes, but breaking eggs just cause you feel like it is for toddlers, not chefs. > > Further == and .equals MUST give the same results for Class > objects -- else loads of things break. > > The "ConcreteClass" noted below would not be a Class -- it would > be a new API. > > > Yeah, I realize that, that's why I'm moving away from Java. I'm still missing what the real benefit to having these Class objects be unequal is. It sounds nice in some ivory tower sort of way, but really as long as you have access to the fact that the "K" parameter is String and the "V" parameter is Integer (and the compiler can use this as well to do things like "new V[]"), I don't really see any issue.
-- Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
