'. '

Talk:Blogs:AndreiBadea:EnumsInAPIs

From APIDesign

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comment provided by Andrei Badea - via ArticleComments extension)
(Comment provided by Alex - via ArticleComments extension)
Line 32: Line 32:
--[[User:AndreiBadea|AndreiBadea]] 15:41, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
--[[User:AndreiBadea|AndreiBadea]] 15:41, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
 +
</div>
 +
== Alex said ... ==
 +
 +
<div class='commentBlock'>
 +
Could want to break a rule? This rule having been expressed in various ways by hthe MONSTERS of computer science would be then too strong for me to want to break it. There must be a subtlety I'm missing when following your example. I shall work on that further. That is after I've studied the design patterns. Otherwise no chance for me to pass the exams. Thanks!!
 +
 +
--Alex 23:28, 17 July 2008 (CEST)
</div>
</div>

Revision as of 21:28, 17 July 2008

Comments on Blogs:AndreiBadea:EnumsInAPIs <comments />


Contents

Alex said ...

Normally in a release version one wouldn't want any asserts enabled so maybe not a very big problem? The general principle is if you are designing a library you don't make any assumptions on how your client calls your API. Perhaps I'm wrong though...

--Alex 20:21, 16 July 2008 (CEST)

Vincent Cantin said ...

In this example, if the user wanted to ensure that he covers all the fields of the enumeration, then he wrote something wrong, he should not have the "default:" case.

If the switch covers all the fields of the enumeration, the "default:" is not needed and not warnings/errors are generated at compile time.

We can also assume that if the user use the default close here, his meaning is not to cover all the fields of the enumeration, but to only cover a subset and throw an assert exception when encounter a field of the complementary subset or null.


--Vincent Cantin 03:26, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

Andrei Badea said ...

To Alex: I have also seen IllegalStateException's thrown instead of an assert statement. Regarding the assumptions, you are right. But this case looks like one where you could want to break the rule. Not being able to add fields to the enum could be a big limitation.

To Vincent: you are right, many people have a default branch just to be sure, even when they know they have covered all fields of the enum (of the current version of the enum, that is).


--AndreiBadea 15:41, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

Alex said ...

Could want to break a rule? This rule having been expressed in various ways by hthe MONSTERS of computer science would be then too strong for me to want to break it. There must be a subtlety I'm missing when following your example. I shall work on that further. That is after I've studied the design patterns. Otherwise no chance for me to pass the exams. Thanks!!

--Alex 23:28, 17 July 2008 (CEST)

Personal tools
buy