Re: redundant field initializers

[Dalibor Topic]

Jeroen Frijters wrote:
Hi Jeroen,

> -  private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb = null;
> +  private static InitialContextFactoryBuilder icfb;
>  
>
> Making this change removes the need for the compiler to create a static
> initializer.
>
> Does everyone agree that this is a good idea? If so, how far should we
> take this? How about this change:

Looks good and useful to me.

> Index: java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java
> ===================================================================
> RCS file:
> /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java,v
> retrieving revision 1.4
> diff -u -r1.4 EventDispatchThread.java
> --- java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java   31 May 2004 21:11:46 -0000
> 1.4
> +++ java/awt/EventDispatchThread.java   19 Sep 2004 09:52:47 -0000
> @@ -42,14 +42,14 @@
>  
>  class EventDispatchThread extends Thread
>  {
> -  private static int dispatchThreadNum = 1;
> +  private static int dispatchThreadNum;
>  
>    private EventQueue queue;
>  
>    EventDispatchThread(EventQueue queue)
>    {
>      super();
> -    setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + dispatchThreadNum++);
> +    setName("AWT-EventQueue-" + ++dispatchThreadNum);
>      this.queue = queue;
>      setPriority(NORM_PRIORITY + 1);
>      start();

I like the idea. I think that's OK for private fields, that are not used 
in inner classes. But Tom's patch should make them explicitely 
non-privat, so that's the only temporal caveat I can think of.

cheers,
dalibor topic