RFR 8014076: Arrays parallel and serial sorting improvements
chris.hegarty at oracle.com
Thu May 9 09:47:28 UTC 2013
On 05/09/2013 10:45 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>> Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting
>> any value in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely
>> removing any reference to this?
> The compile-time constant issue is easily fixed by using an
> initialization function.
> I think it is important for users to know what the sequential sorting
> threshold is.
I don't understand why this is important. Is the general advise not,
always use parallelSort unless there is a good reason not to?
More information about the core-libs-dev