Ulf Zibis said the following on 04/27/11 19:09:
Am 27.04.2011 02:34, schrieb David Holmes:
Actually my comments more a response to Remi's assertion that clone
should have been used instead, without giving any technical rationale
as to why clone would be better, and so much better that it warranted
Lance changing the code.
Personally I think we should be steering people to Arrays.copyOf for
all their array copying needs.
Hm, why?
One API to learn that covers all the array-copying needs.
clone() is effectively legacy code.
What does that mean?
Just that it is an old mechanism that has been around for a long time,
is limited to one specific use-case and has been made somewhat redundant
by the newer APIs.
I prefer clone():
- less to type
- better to read, especially in looong code lines, e.g. as method call
argument
True. Would be nice if defender methods were expanded to allow you to do
anArray.copyOf()
- in-advanced reader potentially has less need to refer the doc
- potentially faster, at least in interpreter and C1?
I don't have the numbers one way or the other.
BTW: Did you answer to the wrong thread (see attached screen shot) ?
That was the reason why I came aware about this post ;-)
That's weird. No I only answered direct to Stuarts email.
Cheers,
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------
