Article:  |
Readable Java 1.5 | |
| Subject: | interesting, but... | |
| Date: | 2003-09-25 11:44:47 | |
| From: | sjungels | |
|
Response to: interesting, but...
|
||
| I wanted "in" also. The reason I didn't argue for it is that it's already used by System.in. Java compiler writers would have to do backflips to distinguish between an "in" keyword and "in" the member variable. So "in" is out, unfortunately. | ||
Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.
-
interesting, but...
2003-10-16 15:18:11 anonymous2 [View]
-
interesting, but...
2003-09-29 15:26:12 anonymous2 [View]
I tend to think that clearer syntax is much more important than the difficulty of writing the compiler. After all, many more people write Java code than write Java compilers. Is this one of the major reasons Sun did not want to use the "in" keyword?
Of course, I am not planning on ever writing a Java 1.5 compiler.
Thanks for the article, I really enjoyed it.
Object o from collection