Hi Stuart,
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the
subSequence change - you can't weaken the post-condition of
CharSequence.subSequence without breaking subtype substitutability.
Thanks,
David
On 12/11/2013 8:43 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Here's an updated version of the String spec change. Changes from the
previous version address comments made by Brent Christian and David
Holmes. Specifically:
- Specify copyValueOf() overloads as "equivalent to" corresponding
valueOf() overloads.
- Remove extranous changes to subSequence() method
- Clarify wording of concat() method doc.
Bug report:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7174936
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/7174936/webrev.1/
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/7174936/specdiff.1/overview-summary.html
Thanks!
s'marks
On 11/7/13 2:31 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Please review the following spec changes to java.lang.String.
In several places the specs mention returning "new" strings. This is
overspecified; it's sufficient to return "a" string that satisfies the
required
properties. In some cases the current implementation doesn't create a
new string
-- for example, substring(0) returns 'this' -- which is strictly a
violation of
the spec. The solution is to relax the spec requirement to create new
strings.
Also, this change cleans up the specs for the copyValueOf() overloads
to make
them identical to the corresponding valueOf() overloads. Previously,
they were
gratuitously different. I think that some time in the dim, distant past,
probably before JDK 1.0, they had different semantics, but now they're
identical. The specs should say they're identical.
This change is spec only, no code changes.
Bug report:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/jdk-7174936
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/7174936/webrev.0/
Specdiff:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/7174936/specdiff.0/overview-summary.html
Thanks!
s'marks
