Joe Darcy wrote:
Rémi Forax wrote:
Le 14/10/2009 01:32, Joseph D. Darcy a écrit :
Hello.
Following up from threads earlier this year,
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-February/001061.html
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-March/001191.html
I'm willing and interested to sponsor getting String.join
functionality into JDK 7.
To address this particular bug, I think there should be new "join"
methods on String as opposed to a general "joiner" class. A more
general class could be added later.
Remi, please point to a current draft of the specification and
implementation for your change.
Kevin, I'm interested in hearing your comments on the API design.
Thanks,
-Joe
Hi Joe,
the webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~forax/5015163/webrev.00/
There is no specification, i.e no more than the javadoc.
I will dig this evening to find the tests I've used,
they are on another computer at home which is currently shutdown.
As Kevin said String.join is perhaps better as a static method,
see first part of:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-February/001065.html
Yes, I'd also lean toward static methods for this functionality.
Following up on this, what is the exact revised proposal?
In java.lang.String:
public static String join(String separator, Iterable<?> objects);
public static String join(String separator, Object[] objects);
public static String join(String separator, Object first, Object...
rest);
with analogous methods in StringBuffer and StringBuilder return that
type, respectively, instead of String?
I assume the motivation for having both the Object[] and (Object,
Object...) versions is to avoid unnecessary array creation in the case
of one argument since the single method join(String, Object...) could
also be used.
-Joe
