Source code
package def.dom;
@jsweet.lang.Extends({SVGFilterPrimitiveStandardAttributes.class})
public class SVGFEColorMatrixElement extends SVGElement {
public SVGAnimatedString in1;
public SVGAnimatedEnumeration type;
public SVGAnimatedNumberList values;
public double SVG_FECOLORMATRIX_TYPE_HUEROTATE;
public double SVG_FECOLORMATRIX_TYPE_LUMINANCETOALPHA;
public double SVG_FECOLORMATRIX_TYPE_MATRIX;
public double SVG_FECOLORMATRIX_TYPE_SATURATE;
public double SVG_FECOLORMATRIX_TYPE_UNKNOWN;
native public void addEventListener(String type, EventListener listener, Boolean useCapture);
public static SVGFEColorMatrixElement prototype;
public SVGFEColorMatrixElement(){}
public SVGAnimatedLength height;
public SVGAnimatedString result;
public SVGAnimatedLength width;
public SVGAnimatedLength x;
public SVGAnimatedLength y;
native public void addEventListener(String type, EventListener listener);
native public void addEventListener(String type, EventListenerObject listener, Boolean useCapture);
native public void addEventListener(String type, EventListenerObject listener);
}
Run 1
This code snippet has significant readability issues. The class lacks any organizing comments or logical grouping, mixing core SVG filter primitives with unrelated event listener overloads. Public fields are scattered in a non-intuitive order: constructor and prototype appear midway, while related fields like x, y, width, and height are placed after them. The naming of 'in1' is unclear. Multiple addEventListener overloads are redundant and create unnecessary length; default parameters or a single flexible method would be cleaner. The code uses magic numbers (e.g., double constants) without context. The flat structure actually reduces readability here because related members are not grouped, and the abrupt insertion of the prototype and constructor disrupts the natural reading flow. While each line is simple, the overall organization makes it difficult to understand the class's purpose or API at a glance.
Run 2
The code is moderately readable, typical of auto-generated or library binding code. Structure is linear and predictable, with fields grouped logically (SVG-specific attributes, constants, event methods). Nesting is flat, which is good. Intent is mostly clear — defining an SVG filter element interface — though the presence of both SVGFilterPrimitiveStandardAttributes via the @Extends annotation and duplicate field declarations (height, width, x, y, result) creates ambiguity about the class's actual inheritance and structure. Code length is acceptable for a bindings file, but multiple addEventListener overloads are repetitive and could be condensed. Action granularity is one declaration per line, aiding scanning. Reading flow is natural: fields, constants, methods, though public fields break encapsulation conventions. Overall, it is understandable but not exemplary due to redundancy and lack of encapsulation.
Run 3
The code follows a predictable class structure with fields grouped by type, which aids scanning. However, the organization of fields is inconsistent: numeric constants, method declarations, and nested element references are interleaved without clear grouping. Nesting is flat and readable. Intent is somewhat ambiguous due to the use of raw doubles for constants and lack of comments explaining the SVG filter semantics. Code length is acceptable but includes redundant overloaded methods. Each line generally contains one action, but the mixing of primitive and object constants reduces clarity. Reading flow is disrupted by the placement of methods between fields. Overall, it is functional but not optimized for readability.
Run 1
Code Structure: The class is straightforward, but fields, the constructor, and event-listener overloads are interleaved rather than grouped logically. Nesting: There is no nested logic, making the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: SVG-specific types and descriptive constant names communicate the binding's purpose, though names such as in1 rely on domain knowledge. Code length: The declaration is concise, with little unnecessary content. Action granularity: Each declaration occupies its own line, clearly separating members. Reading flow: Consistent indentation helps, but the lack of blank lines and separation of related overloads disrupt the flow. Grouping fields, the constructor, and methods would improve readability.
Run 2
Code Structure: The class is straightforward, but fields, the constructor, and event-listener overloads are interspersed rather than grouped logically. Nesting: There is no deep nesting, making the code easy to scan. Clarity of intent: The class name, inheritance, and SVG-specific types clearly indicate a DOM binding, though abbreviated names and unexplained numeric type fields require API familiarity. Code length: The declaration is concise, with little unnecessary content. Action granularity: Each field or method declaration occupies its own line. Reading flow: Mostly natural, but separating fields from methods, grouping overloads, and adding blank lines between sections would improve readability.
Run 3
Code Structure: The class is straightforward, but fields, constructor, prototype, and event-listener overloads are interleaved rather than grouped consistently. Nesting: Essentially flat, with no complex control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive SVG types and constant names communicate a DOM binding, though in1 and the absence of documentation offer limited context. Code length: Concise for a declaration-only class; overload repetition is reasonable. Action granularity: Each declaration occupies its own line, making individual members easy to scan. Reading flow: Mostly natural, but the scattered addEventListener overloads and lack of blank lines between logical sections interrupt the flow.