调用方法与类 [英] calling method Versus class.method

问题描述

我有一个类定义了两个方法。

  public class Routines {
 
 public static method1（）{
 / *语句集* / 
} 
 
 public static method2（）{
 / *另一组语句* / 
} 
} 
  

现在我需要从method2

以下哪种方法更好？

  public static method2（）{
 
 method1（）; 
 
} 
  

或

$ b b

  public static method2（）{
 
 Routines.method1（）; 
 
} 
  

解决方案

同意现有的答案，这主要是一个风格问题，它是足够的风格问题，Eclipse和IntelliJ的代码批评会标记非静态引用静态方法在代码中，不使用 Classname.method（） style。

我通过使用类名来强调 intent 限定对静态目标的引用， this 以限定对实例目标的引用，以及本地引用的裸名。现代IDE将对这些构造使用不同的突出显示，因此我认为这些天不太重要。我喜欢维护者（通常是我自己）来知道是什么意思，是的，我知道是一个 static 引用。

是的，它确实使稍微更冗长的代码，但我认为这是值得额外的字符。

I have a class with two methods defined in it.

public class Routines {

     public static method1() {
      /* set of statements */
     }

     public static method2() {
      /* another set of statements.*/
     }
}

Now I need to call method1() from method2()

Which one the following approaches is better? Or is this qualify as a question?

public static method2() {

        method1();

}

OR

public static method2() {

        Routines.method1();

}

解决方案

While I agree with the existing answers that this is primarily a style issue, it is enough of a style issue that both Eclipse and IntelliJ's code critics will flag "non-static references to static methods" in code that does not use the Classname.method() style.

I made it a habit to emphasize intent by using the classname to qualify references to static targets, this to qualify references to instance targets, and bare names for local references. A modern IDE will use different highlighting for these constructs, so I suppose it is less important these days. I like for the maintainer (often myself) to know what was intended, that yes, I knew that was a static reference.

Yeah, it does make for slightly more verbose code, but I think it is worth the extra characters.

这篇关于调用方法与类的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！