Re: Upping the ante (was): ToString?

["Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net>]

In <5e081eac7f7a97a4b8c0fa173d366970.48257@mygate.mailgate.org>, Kent Paul Dolan wrote:

> "Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> wrote:
> 
>> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
> 
>> > But the java SDK API docs recommend exactly that for every class, you
>> > override this behavior inherited from Object, wherever some other
>> > toString() implementation makes more sense for your object, which is why
>> > I consider this to be an implied contract.  If you don't keep the
>> > contract, and go with the default, you deserve the results, it seems to
>> > me.
> 
>> Implied contracts don't hold up in court.  Especially when they only
>> make recommendations...
> 
> An interesting, (and cynical) view, but since the first beneficiary of
> overriding *.toString()
> is always the programmer himself or herself (toString() is an essential
> debugging tool),
> this isn't quite the same as the instances you cite.

Well, if enlightened self interest will motivate java programmers to define
a toString() method, that's fine.  Basically, the point I was making was,
you still won't be able to rely on others always implementing a toString()
method.  That's the nature of recommendations; they can be ignored.

I'm not sure this is even topical in this newgroup.