Skip to content

Conversation

@stephengold
Copy link
Member

This is riskier than #1683. For one thing, it affects many commonly extended classes including BetterCharacterControl and AbstractControl. Also, it modifies the JmeCloneable interface itself.

@stephengold stephengold linked an issue Dec 3, 2021 that may be closed by this pull request
@pspeed42
Copy link
Contributor

pspeed42 commented Dec 3, 2021

Also, I think applications should not be calling jmeClone() directly. It should only be called by JmeCloner. Perhaps leaving these as Object will help discourage users from messing up?

...and JmeCloner does not care what the method returns and so Object is fine.

@stephengold
Copy link
Member Author

After thinking about this some more, I'm convinced this isn't a worthwhile change.

@stephengold stephengold closed this Dec 4, 2021
@stephengold stephengold deleted the sgold/issue-1686 branch December 29, 2021 05:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

jmeClone() methods returning a supertype

3 participants