On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:34:12 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nami
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:33:05 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> I have added a new proposal in the hope that the `requireNonNegative` method
>> name and parameters should be trivial enough for users to directly
>> understand without scrolling down. Let me know your thought on this.
>
> That is defi
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:29:20 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> I think the casts are worth it to set `lock` only once during construction,
>> but would be inclined to leave out the addition of `checkSize`.
>
> I have added a new proposal in the hope that the `requireNonNegative` method
> name and param
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:42:15 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> I assume this is done so that "lock" is only set once during construction
>> (StringWriter is a bit unusual in that it uses the SB as the lock object). A
>> downside of the change is that it introduces casts. Another is that the
>> ex
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
