Lars Gullik BjÃnnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andreas Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> | Not bool <-> int <-> pointer.
>
> Do you have explicit pointers in Java?
Of course not, just references.
> (except from
> NullPointerException. I always found this an oxymoron...)
Yes, I'd also prefer if there was no 'null' value for objects.
Or at least an option to declare non-null references.
>
> | What about this code:
> >
> | if ( 1 < x < 10 ) {
> | printf("yes");
> | }
> | else {
> | printf("no");
> | }
> >
> | a) Should it compile?
>
> we drunken head says yes.
My drunken C++ compiler also says yes :-)
My personal opinion is no, and javac also rejects it.
>
> | b) What should it print for different values of x?
>
> "yes" all the time according to the same drunken head.
> (and I cannot really be bothered to test this.)
No need, you are correct.
...
> >> Loosing battle on this list.
> >
> | Well, at least most of the repliers shared my view that
> | commutativity of array access is both insane and funny.
>
> Sure. But none of us ever use it.
Hah! Half of you didn't know about it before! ;-)
...
> Generics are just a lousy excuse for templates.
> It seems that most Java programmers I have spoken with are pretty much
> disappointed with them.
Probably depends on if you expect a decent type system or a
turing-complete preprocessor. Generics and templates do not have much in
common except for the syntax.
Some of the applications of templates would be realized with reflection
and/or Metadata/Annotations in Java.
Ciao
/Andreas
