RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types (original) (raw)

Christian Thalinger christian.thalinger at oracle.com
Tue Mar 25 20:24:58 UTC 2014

Previous message: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types
Next message: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

```
enum BasicType {
```

    L_TYPE('L', Object.class, Wrapper.OBJECT),  // all reference types

    I_TYPE('I', int.class,    Wrapper.INT),

    J_TYPE('J', long.class,   Wrapper.LONG),

    F_TYPE('F', float.class,  Wrapper.FLOAT),

    D_TYPE('D', double.class, Wrapper.DOUBLE),  // all primitive types

    V_TYPE('V', void.class,   Wrapper.VOID);    // not valid in all contexts

I would suggest to not name them X_TYPE but give them meaningful names like Int, Float, Void. The enum BasicType already infers that it’s a type. If you think it’s not clear that it’s a type just use BasicType.Double in that places.

On Mar 24, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com> wrote:

Updated version: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.03/

- changed the way how arrays of types are created: static final BasicType[] ALLTYPES = BasicType.values(); static final BasicType[] ARGTYPES = Arrays.copyOf(ALLTYPES, ALLTYPES.length-1); - added a test for BasicType (LambdaFormTest.testBasicType). Best regards, Vladimir Ivanov On 3/22/14 2:08 AM, Vladimir Ivanov wrote: John, thanks for the feedback.

Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.02 Also moved LambdaForm.testShortenSignature() into a stand-alone unit test. Best regards, Vladimir Ivanov On 3/21/14 10:54 PM, John Rose wrote: On Mar 21, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Vladimir Ivanov <vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com <mailto:vladimir.x.ivanov at oracle.com>> wrote:

Thanks for the feedback.

What do you think about the following: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.01/ That looks nice. Strong typing; who woulda' thunk it. :-) The uses of ".ordinal()" are the extra cost relative to using just small integers. They seem totally reasonable in the code. I suggest either wrapping "ordinal" as something like "id" or else changing temp names like "id" to "ord", to reinforce the use of a common name. Don't make the enum class public. And especially don't make the mutable arrays public: + public static final BasicType[] ALLTYPES = { LTYPE, ITYPE, JTYPE, FTYPE, DTYPE, VTYPE }; + public static final BasicType[] ARGTYPES = { LTYPE, ITYPE, JTYPE, FTYPE, DTYPE }; — John P.S. That would only be safe if we had (what we don't yet) a notion of frozen arrays like: + public static final BasicType final[] ALLTYPES = { LTYPE, ITYPE, JTYPE, FTYPE, DTYPE, VTYPE }; + public static final BasicType final[] ARGTYPES = { LTYPE, ITYPE, JTYPE, FTYPE, DTYPE };

mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev at openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev

Previous message: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types
Next message: RFR (L) 8037210: Get rid of char-based descriptions 'J' of basic types
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list