Religion.
While in my own code I used to be quite open in terms of allowing lots of
things, Lang is helping to make me think more defensively when code will
be used by other people. For example I no longer make methods public if I
don't think they should be private/protected, I actually use the
CharSetUtils/CharSet needs refactoring really.
CharSet should have the methods squeeze/count/keep/delete as instance
methods.
CharSetUtils is then just a simple access mechanism that creates a CharSet
and calls the method.
None of this breaks backwards compatability, so we don't need to do it
--- Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Religion.
While in my own code I used to be quite open in terms of allowing lots of
things, Lang is helping to make me think more defensively when code will
be used by other people. For example I no longer make methods public if I
don't think
--- Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CharSetUtils/CharSet needs refactoring really.
CharSet should have the methods squeeze/count/keep/delete as instance
methods.
CharSetUtils is then just a simple access mechanism that creates a
CharSet
and calls the method.
None of this
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Phil Steitz wrote:
Sorry if I am being dense here, but isn't CharSet already exposed? Its
Teach me to look at the code before answering :)
I think that I am missing something basic. Sorry if these are stupid
questions.
No such thing as stupid questions. Only stupid
I have committed this change to CVS as follows:
- original translate function in CharSetUtils is unchanged, but DEPRECATED
- NEW method 'replaceChars' added to StringUtils. (translate didn't use set
notation, so was completely out of place on CharSetUtils. replaceChars
follows our style of using
