Re: Backing Up Objects

From:

Piotr Kobzda <pikob@gazeta.pl>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:29:19 +0200

Message-ID:

<f6vg14$hij$1@inews.gazeta.pl>

Lew wrote:

Hal Vaughan writes:

String newString = oldString;

that newString is simply a pointer to oldString so if I change the
value in
one, I change the value in the other.

Lew wrote:

Ironically, under most circumstances it is not possible to change the
value of a String, so this made a bad example. Strings are
"immutable"; without resorting to evil reflection trickery their
value cannot be changed after construction. An example using "Foo"
instead of "String" would be valid (one would assume Foo is not
immutable).

Piotr Kobzda wrote:

One would assume "String" is mutable:

  public class String {
    public java.lang.String value;
    public java.lang.String toString() { return value; }
  }

You're just being argumentative.

No, I'm not. My apologies to all of you who have interpreted my post
that way. That was just to show that there is other possibility (other
than reflection mentioned by you) to mutate "String" value, which gives
the above example similar sense as using Foo does. That's all.

Absent any specific disclaimer to the contrary, as the original post
was, why in the world would one figure that "String" meant anything
other than "java.lang.String"? If you wish to assume the OP is an idiot
who reuses the most fundamental class names, thus damaging maintenance,
then perhaps, and only perhaps, your point would have a micro-skootch of
merit, but I refuse to believe the OP was that stupid.

I have never assumed that. If the OP thinks I did, my apologies to him,
that was not my intent.

Be real.

Well, I'll try. Thank you for advice.

piotr