On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 13:27, Ulf Zibis <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 13.03.2010 00:29, schrieb Martin Buchholz: > > Won't you like to add: > * <p><b>Note:</b> In combination with {...@link #isBMPCodePoint(int)} this > * method should be in 2nd place to permit additional HotSpot compiler > * optimization. Example: > * <blockquote><pre> > * if (Character.isBMPCodePoint(codePoint)) > * ...; > * else if (Character.isSupplementaryCodePoint(codePoint)) > * ...; > * else > * ...; > * </pre></blockquote> > *
No. This kind of implementation-specific comment is not traditionally put in public javadoc (it's considered OK in private comments). Also, we should not inflict our dangerous micro-optimization disease on others. >> 6934265: Add public method Character.isBMPCodePoint >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/public-isBMPCodePoint >> > > Additionally please move static final int SIZE = 16 to one of the first > lines of the code. > See: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/attachment.cgi?id=178&action=diff No. Although I agree with you that SIZE would be better near the top of the class, I am not going to move it, at least not now. For consistency, the SIZE fields in related classes like Short should be moved as well. >> 6934270: Remove javac warnings from Character.java >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/Character-warnings >> 6934271: Better handling of longer utf-8 sequences >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/utf8-twiddling >> 6666666: Optimize bit-twiddling in Bits.java >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/Bits.java >> > > Hm, I can't see any difference that would merit to see it as > micro-optimization. Am I blind? Bytecode is smaller. >> Now I need to go off to my micro-optimizers-anonymous meeting. >> > > Oh, you are coming to Cologne, Germany. Nice to meet you personally. Das letzte Mal war ich in Köln zu Bewerbungsinterview. Leider nur Stellungen in der Versicherungsindustrie zu der Zeit. Martin
