On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 12:28 -0800, Keith Seitz wrote:
> Okay, so there seems to be universal agreement on that. All we need
> now is for Mark to chime in and disagree. :-)
No, no, no! I know better than to disagree with an universal agreement.
Could someone just make a patch for doc/cp-hacking.te
Mario Torre wrote:
Il giorno ven, 09/03/2007 alle 12.05 -0800, Keith Seitz ha scritto:
2) After
/**
* foo
*/
@Override
I presume most people would prefer #1?
Keith
I speak for myself, but I think most of us agree here, doing #1 would
make things to lost easily, for example in case of l
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 15:17 -0500, Francis Kung wrote:
> @Override
> public void foo();
> >>
> >> Me too. Three votes... maybe the motion passes? :)
> >
> > So that's several votes for this style already.
>
> +1, FWIW
>
> > 2) After
> > /**
> > * foo
> > */
> > @Override
>
> +1 f
@Override
public void foo();
Me too. Three votes... maybe the motion passes? :)
So that's several votes for this style already.
+1, FWIW
2) After
/**
* foo
*/
@Override
+1 for annotations after javadoc, it feels clearer that way.
Francis
Il giorno ven, 09/03/2007 alle 12.05 -0800, Keith Seitz ha scritto:
> 2) After
> /**
> * foo
> */
> @Override
>
> I presume most people would prefer #1?
>
> Keith
>
I speak for myself, but I think most of us agree here, doing #1 would
make things to lost easily, for example in case of long
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:05:42PM -0800, Keith Seitz wrote:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>"Mario" == Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>>@Override
> >>>public void foo();
> >
> >Me too. Three votes... maybe the motion passes? :)
>
> So that's several votes for this style already. On
Tom Tromey wrote:
"Mario" == Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
@Override
public void foo();
Me too. Three votes... maybe the motion passes? :)
So that's several votes for this style already. One last question: what
about comments/javadoc?
1) Before
@Override
/**
* foo
*/
2)
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:25:37PM +0100, Mario Torre wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 09/03/2007 alle 10.35 -0800, Keith Seitz ha scritto:
>
> > @Override
> > public void foo();
>
> I suggest this one. It seems more clear to me.
+1
Cheers,
Michael
--
.''`. | Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :
> "Mario" == Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> @Override
>> public void foo();
Mario> I suggest this one. It seems more clear to me.
Me too. Three votes... maybe the motion passes? :)
FWIW you won't see too many annotations in the source right now,
especially not @Override. I t
Mario Torre writes:
> Il giorno ven, 09/03/2007 alle 10.35 -0800, Keith Seitz ha scritto:
>
> > @Override
> > public void foo();
>
> I suggest this one. It seems more clear to me.
+1
Andrew.
Il giorno ven, 09/03/2007 alle 10.35 -0800, Keith Seitz ha scritto:
> @Override
> public void foo();
I suggest this one. It seems more clear to me.
Ciao,
Mario
--
Lima Software - http://www.limasoftware.net/
GNU Classpath Developer - http://www.classpath.org/
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Profil
Hi,
The Classpath Hacker's Guide doesn't mention anything about annotations.
Doing a quick grep of the sources, I see that, e.g., the "@Override"
annotation is being handled in several different ways:
@Override
public void foo();
@Override public void foo();
public @Override void foo();
Do
12 matches
Mail list logo
