Paul,
toUpperCaseEx is overridden in CharacterData00/Latin1. Those two are
under gensrc/java/lang. It might be possible to combine them some day
(need to dig out some decade long history and probably there is compability
concern...), but definitely is beyond the scope of this "improvement" :-)
Ulf,
webrev has been updated to use isBmpCodePoint() as suggested. Another
benefit of using isBmpCodePoint() is that some Character.ERROR checks
are no longer necessary
if (lowerChar != Character.ERROR&&
lowerChar< Character.MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT) {
result[resultOffset++] = (char)lowerChar;
} else {
-->
if (Character.isBmpCodePoint(lowerChar)) {
result[resultOffset++] = (char)lowerChar;
} else {
Are we good enough to go? :-) While it took much longer than I would have
expected, but I'm happy with the latest result.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8032012/webrev/
-Sherman
On 02/06/2014 01:44 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Feb 6, 2014, at 5:37 AM, Xueming Shen<[email protected]> wrote:
Fair enough. I don't think it's going to be a measurable difference. I have
updated the webrev
to use the Character.isSurrogate() for better readability.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8032012/webrev
One last point, sorry :-)
Can you use Character.toUpperCase rather than Character.toUpperCaseEx ? [*].
Paul.
[*] They both seem to point to the same code, so either Character.toUpperCase
can incorrectly return Character.ERROR or Character.toUpperCaseEx never returns
ERROR:
public static int toUpperCase(int codePoint) {
return CharacterData.of(codePoint).toUpperCase(codePoint);
}
static int toUpperCaseEx(int codePoint) {
assert isValidCodePoint(codePoint);
return CharacterData.of(codePoint).toUpperCaseEx(codePoint);
}
abstract class CharacterData {
...
abstract int toUpperCase(int ch);
...
//need to implement for JSR204
int toUpperCaseEx(int ch) {
return toUpperCase(ch);
}
