Return to Answer

added 6 characters in body

Source Link

edited Apr 12, 2013 at 15:46

111k
45
302
323

That solution looks altogether workable to me.

One nitpick: I find that when I have to store different types of things in a uniform way, and there are only a small, non-expandable number of types that can exist, I'd rather have separate methods readInt(), readString() etc. and live with a small amount of duplication to specifyingrather than specify the generic parameter on every access. At least, I would write "syntactic sugar" wrappers in that style. But that really is a question of what you consider more readable. Obviously, if there are an unbounded number of types that you have to support, the generic solution is the way to go.

That solution looks altogether workable to me.

One nitpick: I find that when I have to store different types of things in a uniform way, and there are only a small, non-expandable number of types that can exist, I'd rather have separate methods readInt(), readString() etc. and live with a small amount of duplication to specifying the generic parameter on every access. At least, I would write "syntactic sugar" wrappers in that style. But that really is a question of what you consider more readable. Obviously, if there are an unbounded number of types that you have to support, the generic solution is the way to go.

That solution looks altogether workable to me.

One nitpick: I find that when I have to store different types of things in a uniform way, and there are only a small, non-expandable number of types that can exist, I'd rather have separate methods readInt(), readString() etc. and live with a small amount of duplication rather than specify the generic parameter on every access. At least, I would write "syntactic sugar" wrappers in that style. But that really is a question of what you consider more readable. Obviously, if there are an unbounded number of types that you have to support, the generic solution is the way to go.

Source Link

answered Apr 12, 2013 at 8:00

Kilian Foth

111k
45
302
323

That solution looks altogether workable to me.

One nitpick: I find that when I have to store different types of things in a uniform way, and there are only a small, non-expandable number of types that can exist, I'd rather have separate methods readInt(), readString() etc. and live with a small amount of duplication to specifying the generic parameter on every access. At least, I would write "syntactic sugar" wrappers in that style. But that really is a question of what you consider more readable. Obviously, if there are an unbounded number of types that you have to support, the generic solution is the way to go.