On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 07:21:38PM -0800, Joseph Darcy wrote: > Hello, > > Catching up on email, the specification of java.lang.Class does not > explicitly promise that its notion of equality must be identity for > all time. Therefore, while not required for today's implementations, > I would prefer that new code we write in the JDK use equals rather > than == when comparing classes.
Thank you for getting back on this matter. First of all, I agree with you that 'equals' is in a sense more future proof than plain '=='. Strictly speaking though, can't one say that todays docs implicitly specify that j.l.Class.equals *must* be identity-based (since it does not explicitly refine the spec of Object.equals)? If so, wouldn't it be a breaking change to add a j.l.Class.equals which refines this by specifying something else? (Side note, At the moment I neighter consider this review as accepted nor rejected, and assume that the patch won't make it into 8 regardless.) -- Andreas
