Expecting Integer.valueOf(String) to accept Literal format ...
Charles Oliver Nutter
headius at headius.com
Sat Apr 9 14:56:16 UTC 2016
What are you breaking though? Text that would not parse before will now
parse as a valid integer in an extremely narrow set of cases. It is
*exactly* the same as code that would not compile before compiling now, but
at a different phase of development. And guess what...you're going to get
this report over, and over, and over...
- Charlie (mobile)
On Apr 9, 2016 22:51, "Vitaly Davidovich" <vitalyd at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the risk of breaking existing code in such a common API is
> worth the slight convenience improvement. If someone is keen on supporting
> such things, they can front this API by replacing underscores themselves,
> or more generally have something else accept underscores and canonicalize
> to what Integer.valueOf expects.
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016, Charles Oliver Nutter <headius at headius.com>
>> I feel like this is an obvious API gap that should be fixed. If it is a
>> valid syntax in javac, it should be a valid syntax in JDK APIs. My first
>> impression was that this was an obvious oversight.
>> - Charlie (mobile)
>> On Apr 9, 2016 21:04, "Christoph Engelbert" <me at noctarius.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Andrew,
>> > Not sure it would risk breaking compatibility. It’s fairly easy to
>> > it by just replacing underscore before parsing. Do you think of code
>> > is expected to not parse underscore arguments? I think it’s a fair
>> > to support underscore based integer representations, even though I never
>> > needed it yet, anyhow it makes sense to me to give users the
>> possibility to
>> > have the same integer representation in, let’s say, properties files.
>> > Chris
>> > > On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:06, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 08/04/16 23:36, kedar mhaswade wrote:
>> > >> As library writers however, how would you explain this mismatch?
>> > >
>> > > Changing valueOf(String) runs the risk of breaking existing Java code,
>> > > and Java takes compatibility very seriously. Whether it's worth the
>> > > risk is a matter of judgement.
>> > >
>> > > Andrew.
>> > >
> Sent from my phone
More information about the core-libs-dev