Hi Mike,
Yes, all that you say below is true. CharSequence is an interface that does
not define the contract of identity when implementations/subtypes of
CharSequence do - each in it's own way. Much like java.util.Collection and
List vs. Set. It's always dangerous for methods that return such i
Le 26/06/12 20:10, Mike Duigou a écrit :
StringBuilder.append(string.substring(lower, upper));
by:
StringBuilder.append(string, lower, upper);
This would seem to be a good refactoring regardless of the substring
implementation as it avoids creation of a temporary object.
The ratio
On Jun 26 2012, at 07:13 , Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> If String.substring(int, int) now performs a copy of the underlying char[]
> array and if there is no String.subSequence(int, int) providing the old
> functionality, maybe the following implications should be investigated?
>
>
> StringBu
If String.substring(int, int) now performs a copy of the underlying
char[] array and if there is no String.subSequence(int, int) providing
the old functionality, maybe the following implications should be
investigated?
StringBuilder.append(...)
Since, in order to avoid a
On 22/06/2012 23:15, Mike Duigou wrote:
:
- The CharSequences returned by subSequence would follow only the general
CharSequence rules for equals()/hashCode(). Any current usages of the result of
subSequence for equals() or hashing, even though it's not advised, would break.
We could add equal
nIndex,
> endIndex).asReadOnlyBuffer()' ? Easy to implement and test. The nice thing
> is that parsers would know what a 'CharBuffer' vs. a sub sequence String
> internal class.
>
> Jason
>
> > Subject: String.subSequence and CR#6924259: Remove of
ring.subSequence and CR#6924259: Remove offset and count fields
> from java.lang.String
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:15:40 -0700
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
>
> I've made a test implementation of subS
I've made a test implementation of subSequence() utilizing an inner class with
offset and count fields to try to understand all the parts that would be
impacted. My observations thus far:
- The specification of the subSequence() method is currently too specific. It
says that the result is a sub
