Content deleted Content added
m →Def, scope, mess: too |
→Def, scope, mess: afterthought |
||
Line 70:
:: Boxing/unboxing/autoboxing are issues in the [[:Category:Programming_language_implementation|implementation]] of [[object oriented programming language]]s. These aren't issues of how objects are implemented, but of how [[primitive types]] ''relate'' to objects; in some languages like Ruby (or Scala IIRC), all primitive types are objects.
:: So, I think the best solution is to rename this article to [[Boxing, unboxing and autoboxing]] and add a [[WP:SUMMARY]] of this at [[primitive types]] and at [[object (computer science)]]. [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 07:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
::: After a little more thought, these are not just implementation issues, but design too. Whether you force the programmer to write boilerplate code for boxing/unboxing or decide to go for autoboxing is a language design issue as well. Still, this doesn't change the fact that this article is about the relation between primitive types and object types in OOP languages. [[User:Pohta ce-am pohtit|Pcap]] [[User_talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit|<small>ping</small>]] 07:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||