On 30 May 2002, Jim Pick wrote: > Okay, I applied it, but didn't test it.
Thanks. I tested it, but I'd also like to comment on the style, as it was brought up. I personally prefer self-documenting code, especially where comments aren't preferable (interfaces etc.), which includes fully qualified names showing where the class members are coming from even when they aren't syntaxically required. This tends te reduce confusion, although possibly at slight cost to code reusability (the cut & paste kind, mainly). However, I didn't bother touching other people's code to do that, since as far as I knwo there's no style-guideliens for Kaffe source, and the rest of the code was mixing fully-qualified and relative references as well. Unfortunately, this probably leads to worse confusion than not using fully qualified naems at all, since the reader is left wondering why the different way of referring... are they really the same after all? So, I'd like to propose trying to accept some sort of style-guidelines for Kaffe code, for this and other similiar cases. Even if in the end they just ended up recommending that people try to use uniform style within each class :) -Jukka Santala _______________________________________________ kaffe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe