Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9A0CDFE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 74902 invoked by uid 500); 20 Apr 2011 06:11:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 74833 invoked by uid 500); 20 Apr 2011 06:11:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 74825 invoked by uid 99); 20 Apr 2011 06:11:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:11:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of flamefew@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.43] (HELO mail-qw0-f43.google.com) (209.85.216.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:11:19 +0000 Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so248878qwf.30 for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=COjJDMrB55jr/+derqAftHi0AcYiK8DFRyDGcNqw8yQ=; b=gklUNYEBD+k1Y4hEJ7UxczrAOSoAWbIu+k75C/b0uSHa38Ik9j8AmvMDbV5JdGBlRb j+m1v62ABtQT4lA+gUtgzcWX4PC3q6rXxVEzXzAkDrrODgTgF7fzMJP1+VTwootWU1ai YYh75iAUQFGx16VUkGwPH7bOPHNoeWTOtg2Ug= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=nhTA3w4MRhsE31ojKf7eRw8JyrX/cfVvN7k/jVuqEI8fNWm9IsInDL5P02wy1O4q+g 4hLmQf3QrCufDvRwHXjGN48zP81YgSx4N++tWbpg8o3e+u4qu+NF0T/M3zf5nP0TknMo hG5KJM4MDXGXazwLghu9vuoI6vvcQkZYaFJlM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.128.158 with SMTP id k30mr5020446qcs.188.1303279858408; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.95.130 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:10:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Lang] Pair toString From: Henri Yandell To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Is Pair now good (for a value of consensually agreed good)? On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I added a test to verify the default Pair toString behavior. > > For me to replace our custom Pair class at work, I need to customize the to > String behavior. > > Subclassing ImmutablePair and MutablePair to override toString smells nasty. > > What about adding a formatString ivar which will be used with the > String.format API? > > -- > Thank you, > Gary > > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ > http://garygregory.com/ > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org