Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Line 109:
Thanks for the kind words Lingwitt, I'll be sure to remember them the next time I decide to write an article on an obscure topic in an effort to save it from historical obscurity. After all, I just ''love'' being called a know-nothing in public after spending hours at the keyboard looking up resources so other people might find something of interest on an underreported topic. But I'm sure you're right, clearly you can do a much better job. I'm sure you would never make a basic mistake like implying that classes have names... oh wait, what's this in the Java documentation... "obj.getClass().getName())". Oh well, so much for that line of reasoning. And really, if one is going to complain about punctuation, using exclamation marks is likely to do little to support your position. I'll file your comments properly: *plonk* [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sigh. First, you're right that Lingwitt's tone is completely inappropriate. Second, you're right that Lingwitt's claim that classes don't have names is absurd. However, for your example, obj.class.getName() would yield "Vehicle", not "Porsche 911", but "has a name" is clearly intended to refer to the latter, not the former. -- [[User:Jibal|Jibal]] 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
| |||