commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jack, Paul" <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:38:23 GMT
> > Your syntactic sugar is not worth my maintainence headache.  
> Syntactic sugar?  A cute but hardly relevant comment, Paul.

Static methods can't be overridden and are always
visible from anywhere.  To extend a class that only provides
static methods is only giving you the ability to reference
those methods without specifying the class name.  It's
syntactic sugar.  Providing that syntactic sugar is not worth
the associated costs.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message