> Consider the Java class::
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Can anyone see a reason for this other than to annoy me (and break the
> tools I use to analyze Java classes)?
The 1.5 way seems more logical and natural to me. After all your anonymous
and Local classes are inside Inner inside Outer. Maybe the guys at Sun
thought so too.
> In 1.4.2, there are classes Outer$1.class and Outer$1Local.class. In 1.5,
> these become Outer$Inner$1.class and Outer$Inner$1Local.class. Can anyone
> see a reason for this other than to annoy me (and break the tools I use to
> analyze Java classes)?
The good news is the JLS3 gives rules to what the format should be, so
shouldn't change too much in the future.
Tom Hawtin

Signature
Unemployed English Java programmer
http://jroller.com/page/tackline/
Mike Schilling - 16 Nov 2005 06:13 GMT
>> In 1.4.2, there are classes Outer$1.class and Outer$1Local.class. In
>> 1.5, these become Outer$Inner$1.class and Outer$Inner$1Local.class. Can
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> The good news is the JLS3 gives rules to what the format should be, so
> shouldn't change too much in the future.
So it does.
(http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/binaryComp.html#13.1)
Thanks!
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:37:45 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>In 1.4.2, there are classes Outer$1.class and Outer$1Local.class. In 1.5,
>these become Outer$Inner$1.class and Outer$Inner$1Local.class. Can anyone
>see a reason for this other than to annoy me (and break the tools I use to
>analyze Java classes)?
A bug has been corrected.

Signature
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Mike Schilling - 17 Nov 2005 21:15 GMT
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:37:45 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> A bug has been corrected.
I don't see any bug. The change to local class names in 1.4.2 *was* a
bugfix, IIRC, because the previous names could be ambiguous, but the 1.4.2.
naming convention worked perfectly well.
Roedy Green - 17 Nov 2005 22:22 GMT
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:15:06 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :
>I don't see any bug. The change to local class names in 1.4.2 *was* a
>bugfix, IIRC, because the previous names could be ambiguous, but the 1.4.2.
>naming convention worked perfectly well.
To me they seem wrong if that description of the names is correct. A
name should reflect something's proper place in the hierarchy. (how
feudal!) In any case the designers were putting the naming rules in
the JLS so they probably decided to tidy them up to make them easier
to explain and easier to defend.

Signature
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.