Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: James Ring <sjr@jdns.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [lang] this.foo() vs. foo()
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:45:31 +1100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
References: <19B78354A4AA3E4287384F3D30933F889E0E57@MAIL1.seagull.nl>
In-Reply-To: <19B78354A4AA3E4287384F3D30933F889E0E57@MAIL1.seagull.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200603081045.31914.sjr@jdns.org>

Hi Gary,

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 10:35, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hello:
>
> This could be a religious issue... look out!
>
> In our product code bases, we use the "this.foo()" convention. The
> argument being, that in object oriented programming, a message is sent
> to an object, always.

Will this.foo() and foo() always result in the same behaviour, particularly 
when you're dealing with overridden methods? I ask because I am unsure!

> How does the list feel about cleaning up foo()'s to this.foo()'s?

I personally think that foo() is just fine, especially when calling private 
helper methods.

> I am willing to do this clean up, actually, I'll let Eclipse do it ;)
>
> Or, we can leave it all as is, with some classes doing it one way and
> others the other way.

My (unimportant, meaningless ;) vote is to leave it.

> Gary

Regards,
James

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org