On 07/07/06, Magnusson, Geir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If people are relying on one implementation that's undocumented
> behaviour, then it's bad code. It may well fail on any other system
> (inc. embedded systems, or other OS, or even between different
> versions).
No kidding. Welcome to t
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Blewitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:52 AM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: [classlib] compatibility of toString
>
> On 06/07/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <
On 06/07/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here here; if only the API was printOn(OutputStream) then we'd all be
happy(er).
I suspect that it's hear, hear, at least there (in Parliament). :-)
Alex.
-
Terms of use :
On 06/07/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> IMNSHO I don't think we should by default copy the toString()
> behaviour from the RI, unless mandated by the spec in JavaDoc.
Ok. Good rant, and I agree with it, but I still don't see a reason here
why we shouldn'
IMNSHO I don't think we should by default copy the toString()
behaviour from the RI, unless mandated by the spec in JavaDoc.
Frankly, the toString() has always been undefined, and I'm sick off
Java developers saying "Well, yes, but I always expect it to be
[name='value',name='other value']" and th
On 7/1/06, Alex Blewitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 01/07/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Agree. But there are always exceptions. Some "toString" methods have to
> contain some key information as spec required, for example, the size or
> index.
Can you give examples of where t
On 01/07/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agree. But there are always exceptions. Some "toString" methods have to
contain some key information as spec required, for example, the size or
index.
Can you give examples of where the spec specifically mandates the
return values of either
