Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > Oddity with java.util.SortedMap

Reply
Thread Tools

Oddity with java.util.SortedMap

 
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2008
"Captain Koloth" wrote:
> Nope, and only a yIntagh repeats the dishonorable insults of a taHqeq
> towards a Klingon!


You seem to think that you've said something real, here. Anyway, your
complete unwillingness to engage in a real dialog earns you yet
another *plonk*, Paul.

Buh-bye, now. Buh-bye.

And quit the dishonesty of posting under other names to get around our
killfiles.

Joshua, we need better filters.

--
Lew

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Captain Koloth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2008
On Dec 1, 2:29*pm, Lew <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Captain Koloth wrote:
> > Nearly all of it, given it's rarely custom-subclasses.

>
> [calls me a liar]


More tu'HomIraH insults! You dishonor this place with your very
presence, petaQ.

> >>*People who write code are just as important as those who use it.

> > That does not make sense. Both clients and subclassers are "people who
> > write code".

>
> It makes sense


VeQ!

> Tom Anderson said, and Captain Koloth forgot


BIjatlh 'e' yImev, you dishonorable Romulan taHqeq! I did no such
thing. You are the one who's been mangling attributions.

> >> But you thus show that you realize that there would be a need for change if
> >> the contract changed.

> > Qagh Sopbe'. Entirely beside the point, given how little change.

>
> I have already shown how it isn't necessarily a "little change".


YIDoghQo'. I have already shown that you were wrong.

> You should do something about that phlegm. *Why are you spouting
> random nonsense amidst your comments?


YIntagh petaQ! You dare call the Klingon language "nonsense"? You
would be wise to stay away from Qo'noS. You would not utter three
words there before someone ran you through with a bat'leth! Hab SoSlI'
Quch!

> > QoH!

>
> WTF?


QI'yaH!

> What is this [insults deleted]


BIjatlh 'e' yImev, petaQ!

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> > It won't, since changing the implementation keySet return type to
> > SortedSet won't force change on clients of that code, and it's
> > unlikely for the implementation to be itself subclassed, and even more

>
> You have completely disregarded the points made before


I have not. We are now discussing changing a particular
implementation, not the interface, to return SortedSet.

> [suggests that I might have been dishonest]


YIHarQo'! nepwI' ghaH!

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> > unlikely for such a subclass to be overriding the superclass
> > implementation of keySet.

>
> [suggests that I might have been dishonest]


PetaQ! Qab jIH naghIl! (Face me if you dare!) Otherwise, naDevvo'
yIghoS.

> > Tojo'Qa'! What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

>
> You've never worked on a large-scale project, have you?


Of course I have, Romulan slime. Why do you ask?

> I know from the jobs on which I work that
> these are real concerns, as voiced by the software architects and
> project managers, that affect how real budgets are spent, and


what a load of veQ.

> it's founded on real-world experience, unlike what you've been saying.


Romulan cur! Again, you dare to accuse me of lying? QoH! Charghbej
vIt!

>*And speak English, not gobbledygook.


Nuqjatlh??

Gobbledygook??!

TlhIngan maH!

I speak the language of honor, while you speak like a Federation
petaQ!

> >> [calls me a liar]

>
> [insults deleted], Paul.


My name is Koloth, petaQ!

Qab jIH naghIl, cowardly taHqeq! BItu Hpa' bIHeghjaja!

> > Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!

>
> More nonsense.


I said, "when you insult a Klingon's honor, prepare for trouble". You
did not heed the warning, yIntagh. Bljeghbe'chug vaj blHegh, petaQ!

> > If anyone here is a lying petaQ ... well, let's just say that it is
> > not I!

>
> [insults deleted]


QI'yaH!

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

> >> At the time the contract was written, there weren't any. *Having written the
> >> contract, Java must not assume that continues to pertain. *There could be
> >> thousands of such implementations by now.

>
> Paul averred:
>
> > VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.


No, he did not. I wrote that, you dishonorable Romulan taHqeq.

> "Probably"? *"Only a handful"? [more false accusations of
> dishonesty]


The only dishonorable one here is you, petaQ. You are a coward who
hides behind a computer screen and insults the honor of true warriors!
Do'Ha'! But, I suppose, rot yittmey ghom Hoch ...

To all jaghpu' who dare dishonor me in public, I have only this to
say: charghbej vIt!

Oh, and toDwI'maj qoSyItIvqu'!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Captain Koloth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-01-2008
On Dec 1, 2:34*pm, Lew <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Captain Koloth wrote:
> > Nope, and only a yIntagh repeats the dishonorable insults of a taHqeq
> > towards a Klingon!

>
> You seem to think that you've said something real, here.


I have. BIpIvHa'law' ... and it's something in your head.

>*Anyway, your complete unwillingness to engage in a real dialog


I have tried. You are unwilling to discuss anything without insulting
your opponent and repeating yourself while ignoring the points that
your opponent has raised. You are a dishonorable petaQ. Worse, you are
a Qa'Hom and you do not even know it!

Qagh Sopbe'. I have no time for unimportant little things like you.

> And quit the dishonesty


You are the one being dishonorable, petaQ.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
Captain Koloth wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:56 am, Tom Anderson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> A contract binds two parties, thus you can think about it from two sides.

>
> But we only need to worry about the side on the receiving end of the
> changes. We can assume the side that WANTS the change is fine with it.


Those maintaining Java specs has to consider both sides.

And the ones writing classes that implement the interface does
not necessarily want the change.

Arne

 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajh°j
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
Captain Koloth wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:35 am, Arne Vajh°j <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Captain Koloth wrote:
>>> It would take all of five minutes.

>> That is for hobby programming projects.
>>
>> Elsewhere you don't make changes in 5 minutes and then
>> that is it.

>
> You certainly can if you're just adding firstKey, lastKey, tailSet,
> headSet, and subSet to a Set on which you aren't currently even
> calling those methods.
>
>>> Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap, really?

>> I am sure a few exists.

>
> A few. And how many already return a SortedSet, just without the
> return type being declared as such? Those can be subtracted. The only
> change they need is to change the return type! A one minute change!


Your theories about software development could really revolutionize
the industry:

estimate = KLOC * average line length / typing speed

Or maybe you should just stop posting until you have tried
working on a software project.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
fencore1@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
On Dec 1, 7:59 pm, Arne Vajh°j <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > But we only need to worry about the side on the receiving end of the
> > changes. We can assume the side that WANTS the change is fine with it.

>
> Those maintaining Java specs has to consider both sides.


When we're talking about modifying a class in java.util, "those
maintaining Java specs" ARE one side!

> the ones writing classes that implement the interface does
> not necessarily want the change.


Fortunately it is a trivial change.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
Captain Koloth wrote:
> More tu'HomIraH insults! You dishonor this place with your very
> presence, petaQ.


> VeQ!


> BIjatlh 'e' yImev, you dishonorable Romulan taHqeq! I did no such
> thing. You are the one who's been mangling attributions.


>>> Qagh Sopbe'.


> YIDoghQo'. I have already shown that you were wrong.


> YIntagh petaQ! You dare call the Klingon language "nonsense"? You


Absolutely, particularly as spat by you.

> would be wise to stay away from Qo'noS. You would not utter three
> words there before someone ran you through with a bat'leth! Hab SoSlI'
> Quch!


>>> QoH!


> QI'yaH!


> BIjatlh 'e' yImev, petaQ!
>
> None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
> all true.


A dead giveaway.

>> [suggests that I might have been dishonest]


Nonsense, I did no such thing.

> YIHarQo'! nepwI' ghaH!


> PetaQ! Qab jIH naghIl! (Face me if you dare!) Otherwise, naDevvo'
> yIghoS.
>
>>> Tojo'Qa'! What a ridiculous slippery slope argument.

>> You've never worked on a large-scale project, have you?

>
> Of course I have, Romulan slime. Why do you ask?


Because you show such startling ignorance.

I take it back. It's not startling at all.

> ... veQ.


Lew:
>> it's founded on real-world experience, unlike what you've been saying.


Paul:
> Romulan cur! Again, you dare to accuse me of lying? QoH! Charghbej
> vIt!


Not of lying, just ignorance and error. Your slip into hebephrenic nonsense
is a clear indicator that you prefer the fantasy world to the real world.

> Nuqjatlh??
>
> Gobbledygook??!
>
> TlhIngan maH!
>
> I speak the language of honor, while you speak like a Federation
> petaQ!


> My name is Koloth, petaQ!
>
> Qab jIH naghIl, cowardly taHqeq! BItu Hpa' bIHeghjaja!
>
>>> Grrr! TlhIngan quv DatIchDI' Seng yIghuH!


Lew:
>> More nonsense.


Paul:
> I said, "when you insult a Klingon's honor, prepare for trouble". You
> did not heed the warning, yIntagh. Bljeghbe'chug vaj blHegh, petaQ!


> QI'yaH!


>>> VeQ! There are probably only a handful, if that.

>
> No, he did not. I wrote that, you dishonorable Romulan taHqeq.
>
>> "Probably"? "Only a handful"? [more false accusations of
>> dishonesty]


Again, not dishonesty, error.

> The only dishonorable one here is you, petaQ. You are a coward who
> hides behind a computer screen and insults the honor of true warriors!
> Do'Ha'! But, I suppose, rot yittmey ghom Hoch ...


Haha. "True warrior". Haha.

> To all jaghpu' who dare dishonor me in public, I have only this to
> say: charghbej vIt!
>
> Oh, and toDwI'maj qoSyItIvqu'!


You are aware that Klingons are fictional, are you not?

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
fencore1@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
On Dec 1, 8:03*pm, Arne Vajh°j <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> Also, how common are third-party implementations of SortedMap, really?
> >> I am sure a few exists.

>
> > A few. And how many already return a SortedSet, just without the
> > return type being declared as such? Those can be subtracted. The only
> > change they need is to change the return type! A one minute change!

>
> [implied insults deleted]


**** you.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
Captain Koloth wrote:
> Nope, and only a yIntagh repeats the dishonorable insults of a taHqeq
> towards a Klingon!


Syllogism:
Klingons are fictional creatures.
You are not fictional.
Therefore, you are not a Klingon.

It's called logic, Paul.

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-02-2008
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:59 pm, Arne Vajh├Şj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> But we only need to worry about the side on the receiving end of the
>>> changes. We can assume the side that WANTS the change is fine with it.

>> Those maintaining Java specs has to consider both sides.

>
> When we're talking about modifying a class in java.util, "those
> maintaining Java specs" ARE one side!
>
>> the ones writing classes that implement the interface does
>> not necessarily want the change.

>
> Fortunately it is a trivial change.


Paul, Paul, Paul. When will you learn that your stupid aliases don't work?

Re-plonk, "petaQ".

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
One More Wireless-to-Wired Oddity J Wireless Networking 1 01-02-2006 06:37 PM
pix policy nat small oddity Walter Roberson Cisco 0 07-12-2005 02:07 PM
PIX 501 PDM Oddity Hank Zoeller Cisco 2 05-20-2005 02:48 AM
803 password recovery oddity Cas Cisco 5 05-13-2005 09:41 AM
split commands oddity rxl124@hehe.com Perl 3 01-29-2004 07:59 AM



Advertisments