Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 2
    It's difficult to tell exactly what you're considering. Not using FAMILY or TYPE? Not inheriting from socket? Could we see some example code with the alternatives you're considering? Commented Dec 5, 2017 at 20:50
  • 3
    I wouldn't duplicate constants that already exist, unless you need to do so for reasons of brevity. The whole reason for having a constant is to provide a single point of definition. Having multiple constants that mean the same thing defeats the purpose. Commented Dec 5, 2017 at 20:53
  • What's the benefit of adding private copies? You'll always be setting them to public values in scope. Commented Dec 5, 2017 at 20:54
  • @CandiedOrange I clarified a bit, but if you'd prefer to see larger code samples, no problem. Commented Dec 5, 2017 at 22:13
  • 1
    @Coal_ It looks to me that your classes provide an abstraction for the families/types so you don't need to expose them in your high level interface. You would be mixing different levels of abstraction. Commented Dec 6, 2017 at 11:39