Another little simplification:
179 boolean overflow = sr > dr;
180 sr = overflow ? dr : sr;
or in your existing logic:
178 int len = sl - sp;
179 boolean overflow = len > (dl - dp);
180 len = overflow ? dl - dp : len;
(len is equivalent to sr)
-Ulf
Am 09.01.2013 19:03, schrieb Vladimir Kozlov:
Ulf,
Thank you for this suggestion but I would like to keep surrounding code intact.
I will rename
"overflowflag" to "overflow". It is used to indicate that we should return
CoderResult.OVERFLOW
result.
Thanks,
Vladimir
On 1/9/13 3:58 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Am 09.01.2013 01:10, schrieb Vitaly Davidovich:
On Jan 8, 2013 6:18 PM, "Vladimir Kozlov" <vladimir.koz...@oracle.com>
wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~**kvn/6896617_jdk/webrev<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kvn/6896617_jdk/webrev>
Another tweak:
168 char[] sa = src.array();
169 int sp = src.arrayOffset() + src.position();
170 int sr = src.remaining();
171 int sl = sp + sr;
172 assert (sp <= sl); // superfluous, sr is always >= 0
173 sp = (sp <= sl ? sp : sl); // superfluous "
174 byte[] da = dst.array();
175 int dp = dst.arrayOffset() + dst.position();
170 int dr = dst.remaining();
176 int dl = dp + dr;
177 assert (dp <= dl); // superfluous "
178 dp = (dp <= dl ? dp : dl); // superfluous "
179 boolean overflow = false;
180 if (sr > dr) {
181 sr = dr;
182 overflow = true;
183 }
Why you called it "overflowflag", in that way, you could name each
variable "myvaluevariable" or "myvaluefield" ;-)
-Ulf
