Sponsoring getting 5015163 "(str) String merge/join that is the inverse of String.split()" into JDK 7
Joe.Kearney at morganstanley.com
Fri Oct 23 15:58:41 UTC 2009
>From the peanut gallery, it seems to me that there is a genuine reason to
leave join as a static method (if we're not going after the google-collections
approach of a Joiner
in that split acts on one existing String, whereas join creates one from
others. On which object would you call the join method? The separator? I
know this was covered on this list before, but it still strikes me as
looking a little wierd.
",".join("a", "b", "c")
> Joiner.on(",").join("a", "b", "c")
2009/10/23 Mark Reinhold <mr at sun.com>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:10:35 +0200
> > From: Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
> > Le 23/10/2009 03:53, Joe Darcy a écrit :
> >> Following up on this, what is the exact revised proposal?
> >> In java.lang.String:
> >> public static String join(String separator, Iterable<?> objects);
> >> public static String join(String separator, Object objects);
> >> public static String join(String separator, Object first, Object...
> >> with analogous methods in StringBuffer and StringBuilder return that
> >> respectively, instead of String?
> > I don't know. In my opinion, the main problem with join specified using
> > static methods is that split is not currently specified as a static
> > method. Because join is the dual of split, one could find the usage of
> > static methods weird.
> I agree. The join methods should be instance methods, not static methods.
> - Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the core-libs-dev