Yes, I have to pull it back due to the compatibility concern. It appears
the jdk source code itself has
couple places depending on this "incorrect" behavior. The typical usage
is "".split(...)[0], in which the
code tries to access the 0th element without even checking the return
length. I may re-visit this
in jdk9, and may have to provide some mechanism for any possible
compatibility complain, if we
decide to "fix" it.
-Sherman
On 11/19/13 4:09 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
b114: 1
my (previous) own build: 0
I fetched changes for JDK-8028321 (the un-do) and now it's back to 1.
So we are keeping this compatibility even if it does not look correct?
Thanks
Max
On 11/19/13, 20:03, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 19/11/2013 11:48, Weijun Wang wrote:
Is this just changed? jdk8b118 shows 1 and now it's 0.
b118 or your own build? I wonder if you have 6559590 but not the un-do.
-Alan.
