On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 12:34:06 GMT, Markus KARG <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This Pull Request proposes an implementation for >> [JDK-8343110](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343110): Adding the new >> method `public void getChars(int srcBegin, int srcEnd, char[] dst, int >> dstBegin)` to the `CharSequence` interface, providing a **bulk-read** >> facility including a default implementation iterating over `charAt(int)`. >> >> In addition, this Pull Request proposes to replace the implementation of >> `Reader.of(CharSequence).read(char[] cbuf, int off, int len)` to invoke >> `CharSequence.getChars(next, next + n, cbuf, off)` instead of utilizing >> pattern matching for switch. Also, this PR proposes to implement >> `CharBuffer.getChars(int srcBegin, int srcEnd, char[] dst, int dstBegin)` as >> an alias for `CharBuffer.get(srcBegin, dst, dstBegin, srcEnd - srcBegin)`. >> >> To ensure quality... >> * ...the method signature and JavaDocs are adapted from >> `AbstractStringBuilder.getChars(...)`. >> * ...this PR relies upon the existing tests for `Reader.of(CharSequence)`, >> as these provide sufficient coverage of all changes introduced by this PR. > > Markus KARG has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Applied changes requested by Chen: 'We might need to specify the IOOBE > behavior - when an IOOBE is thrown, some characters may be already > transferred (this is important for concurrent char sequences)' > Nevertheless, the tests are there, so no _new_ ones are needed. We can > duplicate them, if a majority thinks it is beneficial. As noted in the contribution guide (https://openjdk.org/guide/#testing-the-jdk), regression tests are expected for a majority of changes that are done in the JDK. There are situations where regressions tests cannot be added, but this isn't one. I believe a new method with a default specified implementation in a public exported interface deserves a regression test of its own. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21730#issuecomment-2810110015
