Frank Endriss wrote:
> Given these facts, why not make those classes inner classes of class Foo
> ?
> If you would, everything would work, and from view of OO design it would
> be "nicer".
I think this is a matter of subjective opinion. What did you do before java supported
inner classes?
> If you dont make them inner classes, they have package access, what you
> dont
> want and and dont need, as you describe above.
That is perhaps the best argument.
> However, you are right in doing what you do since javac compiles it.
> BUT: Not every compilable source is good source.
Gee, thanks for enlightening me. I am forever indebted.
> Obviously it is javac. Ant calls javac telling it: compile Foo.java
> Javac does this, and produces parts of the expected results.
> Maybe there is some lack of definition what should happen if one .java
> produces more than one .class.
> This leads us back to the beginning: It is bad style to....
Blah, blah, blah. Just because a tool works in some potentially bad and/or broken way,
does not mean that the style is bad. That's like saying space characters are bad style
since MAKE prefers tabs. Please be sanctimonious elsewhere.
-> richard
