[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?
From: |
Nic Ferrier |
Subject: |
Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed? |
Date: |
31 Jan 2002 20:12:47 +0000 |
"Etienne M. Gagnon" <address@hidden> writes:
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Nic" == Nic Ferrier <address@hidden> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >
> > Nic> If everyone's agreed then I'll start thinking about how to update
> > Nic> indent.
> >
> > I think it looks fine.
> >
>
> It looks OK to me, but please be carefull not to forget to handle things like
>
> "annonymous classes" and "inner classes" well.
>
> e.g.
>
> ...
> some_var = new WindowListenerAdapter()
> {
> void some_method()
> {
> ...
> }
> }.some_method_call();
> ...
>
I thought about putting them in the example... but I'm not sure
whether we should specify them or not.
Anybody else have any views?
Nic
- [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Nic Ferrier, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Aaron M. Renn, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Tom Tromey, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Brian Jones, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Nic Ferrier, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Per Bothner, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Nic Ferrier, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Per Bothner, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Nic Ferrier, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Brian Jones, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Nic Ferrier, 2002/01/31
- Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Tom Tromey, 2002/01/31
Re: [Javaweb-people] So are we agreed?, Bryce McKinlay, 2002/01/31