Request for Review : CR#6924259: Remove String.count/String.offset (original) (raw)

Rémi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Fri May 25 22:33:21 UTC 2012

On 05/26/2012 12:09 AM, Mike Duigou wrote:

On May 25 2012, at 06:57 , Rémi Forax wrote:

Hi Mike, Hi Alan, Hi all, in my opinion, EMPTYSTRINGVALUE is a premature optimization, the idea is, I think, to avoid to create an empty char but if you want to do that, it's better to do that in StringBuilder.toString() to avoid to create the String at all. I have removed most of the use of EMPTYSTRINGVALUE. It remains for the empty constructor only.

I may be wrong but this constructor is used rarely so for me it's like you add one static field that will be never used.

[...]

Recently, getChars(char[], int) was replaced by getChars(char[],int). It was a stupid change because now one can think that getChar(char[], int) and getChar(int,int,char[],int) do the same things. but getChat(char[],int) don't do any bounds check. So concat() and toCharArray() doesn't do any bound check ! I don't see where either of them need to do any checking.

duh, sorry, I've forgotten the basics. You're right.

toCharArray() should use Arrays.copyOf() Done. Overloads of encode in StringCoding are in my opinion not necessary because each method is called once. Reasonable. I opted not to add the 3rd variant ([] count) because it wasn't used. I've reverted to using the 3 param version. So this doesn't really share code but just add one level to the depth of the call stack.

cheers, Rémi

regards, Rémi

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list