Re: Generics headache
Tom Anderson wrote:
What you did say, upthread, was:
Notice that the abstract 'parse()' method, the sole purpose of the
'Parser' interface, its entire raison d'etre, does not use type 'T'.
That means that the type parameter is not necessary.
And to me, that means exactly the same.
That particular post related to the simplified example that didn't
even have doAfterEachMatch in it. Apples and oranges. Here's the
example I provided when making that point:
public interface Parser
{
public AST parse( Map <String, List <String>> parameters );
}
Notice that it is a different example. I apologize for causing
confusion.
I'm curious as to how you'd refactor here to eliminate the type
variable. Presumably, you wouldn't just make doAfterEachMatch take
I said nothing about refactoring 'doAfterEachMatch()' at all.
You suggested doing this:
If you drop the parameterized type from 'Parser' and its implementing
classes, what happens?
Which was related to finding out how much dependency there was on that
type. That was an interrogative, you will notice, not a suggested
solution. I was trying to find out about dependencies, and there was
definitely confusion here about the simplified example the OP actually
provided to Usenet, which did not mention this other method at all,
and the full code base off line, in SourceForge. I looked at the
SourceForge project, but my comments addressed the example as
presented. Apples and oranges.
Which, since Parser includes the doAfterEachMatch method, and that uses
the type variable, means refactoring it, whether by changing, moving, or
deleting it.
Apples and oranges. Different code.
Anyway, since i have clearly failed at reading comprehension, i don't
suppose there's any chance of you being so generous as to explain what you
*did* mean, is there?
Oh, nice sarcasm there, buddy. You know perfectly well the OP's
example made no mention of this other method, then later he did. So
some comments pertained to one example, some to another. I don't
suppose *you'd* be so generous as to cut a guy some slack for having
been confused by the OP's change of context, would you?
Object for a value. Would you factor out a subclass
PostMatchActionParser<ParserMatchingType>, and push the method down to
that?
Would you?
If i [sic] was dead set on eliminating the type variable from Parser, then yes.
I was asking for your insight in how to do the refactoring, if there's
any chance that you'd be so generous as to share the wisdom.
It is a well-trained gut.
With an acid-reflux condition?
--
Lew