hi,
how about some syntactic sugar that allows DefaultMutableTreeNode dmtn =new DefaultMutableTreeNode(userObject,true)
to be shortened toDefaultMutableTreeNode dmtn(userObject,true);
or is this trivial beyond belief? :)
asjf
good pointclass Foo {
DefaultMutableTreeNode dmtn(userObject,true);
}
does look like a method at first glance (of course technically it couldn't be one - even abstract since the parameter type declarations are missing)
a slightly longer version might get round this?class Foo {
DefaultMutableTreeNode dmtn = new(userObject,true);
}
asjf
> a slightly longer version might get round
> this?class Foo {
> DefaultMutableTreeNode dmtn = new(userObject,true);
> }
asjf
So have you just created a new instance of DefaultMutableTreeNode? (is that the default?) Because:
List l = new ArrayList();
List l2 = new LinkedList();
List l3 = new Vector();
List l4 = new() // ?
the difference with this example is that the type of the reference being assigned to is an interface - the suggested syntax contraction would only work for concrete classes i guess
in the case of assigning to an interface then there is no redundancy in the declaration as both the reference type and the class type are valuable information
> > Object o = new String();
>
> ?
ah.. i wasn't suggesting getting rid of the long form - so you'd still be able to do what you've written above
this suggestion was purely because the other afternoon I found myself writingFile file = new File("sdfsdjklfjsdkl");
and similar things lots of times
> ah.. i wasn't suggesting getting rid of the long form
> - so you'd still be able to do what you've written
> above
>
> this suggestion was purely because the other afternoon
> I found myself writingFile file = new
> File("sdfsdjklfjsdkl");
and similar things lots
> of times
Hmm, sorry but I don't like it (just my opinion)
