asked on What's in a name.
Just a bit of musing here . . . what do you think the reason was / is, for the designers of Java to have chosen the 'set' of method names "valueOf()" in the String class? "Value" - to me - normally carries a numeric significance, yet String.valueOf(17) returns a String, not a number. Would it not have been more appropriate to have named this set of methods something like "stringOf()" instead?
Java
Last Comment
krakatoa
SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
Check out the Javadoc index for valueOf. I counted that number of classes
ASKER
Lol - I did, and I only found 2 dozen. But I don't doubt you are right.
What do you think of Byte.valueOf(byte) returning a Byte?
What do you think of Byte.valueOf(byte) returning a Byte?
That's fine. Why do think it isn't?
ASKER
Well, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course I am not saying these methods do not work or are otherwise deficient . . . but there seems to be an enormous amount of super-overloading going on, which, for me is confusing . . . sometimes you get a String, sometimes another type. That makes it more difficult, not less, to remember which way the function is really pointing.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
THIS SOLUTION ONLY AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS.
View this solution by signing up for a free trial.
Members can start a 7-Day free trial and enjoy unlimited access to the platform.
ASKER
Yes, it does. Just as I said in the opening question,the String one is one that always made me frown a bit. ;)
Thanks.
Thanks.
Sorry - i thought the point about it returning its own type went without saying
ASKER
Not sure then that *I* made my point well enough to begin with . . . although I thought I had via this :
"... String.valueOf(17) returns a String, not a number. Would it not have been more appropriate to have named this set of methods something like "stringOf()" instead?"
I was only talking about the superficiality of the method name - not what it does as such.
"... String.valueOf(17) returns a String, not a number. Would it not have been more appropriate to have named this set of methods something like "stringOf()" instead?"
I was only talking about the superficiality of the method name - not what it does as such.
;)