As a java user I never missed generics. Following opinion is just what i feel... a) ClassCastExceptions never wasted my time more than a few minutes. b)Also the advantage of code that spoke for itself could only be achieved through a good developer (generics is not the cure to this, and many can achieve this to some extent without generics). c)One should look at this aspect for new features in wicket-- generics included:: time spent on solving a problem by the end user VS avoiding it by providing an out-of-box solution. IMO generics support IS NOT REQUIRED based on above factor, and the time spent can be invested on some better solutions/problems/use-cases.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:42 AM, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The reason I put LinkGeneric rather than GenericLink was simply so that > the > > two options would appear next to each other in code completions. But of > > course in English GenericLink is more correct. > > Good point regarding completions. Anyway, flexible, english is! Hmmmmmm. > > /Gwyn > - http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
