Expecting Integer.valueOf(String) to accept Literal format ...
kedar.mhaswade at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 18:00:22 UTC 2016
Thanks Joe, for the bug report!
I am a bit unsure about gauging interest in this by looking at the votes on
the bug report because I expected this to just work, especially since the
API was already there! To me, not having this behavior in the platform is a
violation of POLA .
I was thinking harder on the compatibility concerns raised on this thread,
but the fact that JDK team itself filed this bug removed them!
But I guess I will live with the status quo.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:44 AM, joe darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
> The Project Coin team did file
> JDK-6863378: Project Coin: Consider library support for underscores in
> numbers and binary literals
> back before JDK 7 shipped. This change in question wouldn't be
> unreasonable, but it didn't seem critical either, hence the bug was filed
> and left open to gauge interest, which generally has been slight.
> On 4/9/2016 7:44 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> 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 that
>>> 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
>>> have the same integer representation in, let’s say, properties files.
>>> 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.
More information about the core-libs-dev