On 02/07/2014 07:03 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 07/02/2014 03:41, michael cui wrote:
Hi Alan,
Based on current discussions we have had and existing usages in our
code base,
I would like to propose that the fix should ONLY make sure that
${TESTVMOPTS} will be passed in when launching java from
I'm very concerned that this adds bulk to an already oversized language
to support something which should be incredibly obscure.
On 07/02/2014 18:36, Doug Lea wrote:
Alternatives
We considered instead introducing new forms of "value type" that
support volatile operations. However,
Wouldn't it be convenient, if negative indices were allowed for the
get() method here?
So that get(-1) would return the last element, like in some other
languages such as Perl or Python.
I understand it violates the spec for the List#get(), but this is the
'Double Ended' queue, so we may want
On 02/08/2014 06:52 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
can you be a little more specific and provide the way
foo.volatile.compareAndSet is compiled with this example:
Hey, the JEP isn't even out of draft yet! Stop asking hard questions.
:)
The current strawman, though, is to expose direct (CP-ready)
On 02/08/2014 04:50 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
On 02/08/2014 06:19 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
It seems I have to answer.
You don't need to have what you call 'method-handle-macros' to
implement the
.volatile syntax,
(Aside: I love macros enough to want them to be done right someday,
but they seem to be
Hi Joe,
> I'm not sure which algorithm you used to compute pi, but I would be
> very surprised by a ~8 X speed difference between BigInteger and
> BigDecimal if the same computation was being under on the BigDecimal
> values, meaning the BigIntegers held in the BigDecimals were the same
> as the B
