Ping!
(still need a Reviewer on this issue)
Mike
On Sep 16 2013, at 15:49 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Ping!
(still need a reviewer on this)
Mike
On Sep 4 2013, at 11:44 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Hello all;
I have updated the proposed changeset for this issue. I have moved the note
to the
Hi Mike,
Looks good to go back; cheers,
-Joe
On 9/30/2013 2:29 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
Ping!
(still need a Reviewer on this issue)
Mike
On Sep 16 2013, at 15:49 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Ping!
(still need a reviewer on this)
Mike
On Sep 4 2013, at 11:44 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Hello all;
I
Looks fine; cheers,
-Joe
On 9/16/2013 3:49 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
Ping!
(still need a reviewer on this)
Mike
On Sep 4 2013, at 11:44 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Hello all;
I have updated the proposed changeset for this issue. I have moved the note to
the interface documentation for Collection
Ping!
(still need a reviewer on this)
Mike
On Sep 4 2013, at 11:44 , Mike Duigou wrote:
Hello all;
I have updated the proposed changeset for this issue. I have moved the note
to the interface documentation for Collection and Map and made it more
general:
Some collection operations
Hello all;
I have updated the proposed changeset for this issue. I have moved the note to
the interface documentation for Collection and Map and made it more general:
Some collection operations which perform recursive traversal of the
collection may fail with an exception for self-referential
I lke the idea, but the wording feels a little opaque as the result is
typically StackOverflow.
Also, I prefer a style with the @apiNote on a line of its own, rather
like a heading. It makes the documentation easier to read in source
code, and has no effect on the output Javadoc.
@apiNote
If the
Thanks Stephen,
I am fine with your wording. Any other votes or suggested wordings?
Mike
On Aug 28 2013, at 02:55 , Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I lke the idea, but the wording feels a little opaque as the result is
typically StackOverflow.
Also, I prefer a style with the @apiNote on a line
On Aug 28 2013, at 11:48 , Martin Buchholz wrote:
This isn't just about hashCode - I'm not sure why you are singling it out.
What about toString?
A reasonable point. The bug reports are just about as common for toString()
being broken for self-referential collections.
Or really, any
On Aug 28, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mike Duigou mike.dui...@oracle.com wrote:
On Aug 28 2013, at 11:48 , Martin Buchholz wrote:
This isn't just about hashCode - I'm not sure why you are singling it out.
What about toString?
A reasonable point. The bug reports are just about as common for
On 08/28/2013 04:47 PM, Guy Steele wrote:
oldfogey *ahem* Y'know, Common Lisp had a good solution for
printing self-referential structures (by a user-extensible print
function) back in 1984.
It leaned on the solution that had been provided in Interlisp in
1974. On a machine with one
On Aug 28 2013, at 15:54 , Alan Eliasen wrote:
On 08/28/2013 04:47 PM, Guy Steele wrote:
oldfogey *ahem* Y'know, Common Lisp had a good solution for
printing self-referential structures (by a user-extensible print
function) back in 1984.
It leaned on the solution that had been provided in
What Mike said. It's basically the same problem as for serialization,
so you keep a hashtable of all objects traversed---but you need not record
objects that have no subobjects and have simple or short printed
representations
(such as numbers and maybe short strings).
In full generality it
Hello all;
Fairly frequently it is reported that various Collection/Map implementations of
hashCode() fail when the instance directly or indirectly contains itself. For a
variety of reasons, mostly performance and resource related, most
implementations choose not to support calculation of hash
13 matches
Mail list logo
