Re: Quirk with generics
- From: Lew <noone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:58:02 -0500
Roedy Green wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:01:43 -0500, Lew <lew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
You also don't need to be a "language lawyer" for this bit of elementary Java knowledge. One could refer to the tutorials or the JLS to clear this up in a jiffy.
That is correct. I often affect a way of speaking intended to make
newbies welcome to speak up. You usually like to do the opposite. You
get some perverse pleasure in putting newbies down. You usually
behave like some dominant meerkat. Grow up!
Oh, shut up, Roedy. I was pointing out additional places people could go to research these things, lest people be put off by *your* implication that one needs to be a language lawyer to understand things. It is my intention to make it easier for people by letting them know that things are simpler than *you* implied.
So get that bug out of your ...
--
Lew
.
- References:
- Quirk with generics
- From: secret decoder ring
- Re: Quirk with generics
- From: Roedy Green
- Re: Quirk with generics
- From: RedGrittyBrick
- Re: Quirk with generics
- From: Lew
- Re: Quirk with generics
- From: Roedy Green
- Quirk with generics
- Prev by Date: Re: Netbeans failure mode
- Next by Date: Re: Quirk with generics
- Previous by thread: Re: Quirk with generics
- Next by thread: Re: Quirk with generics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|