On 04/03/2016 06:17 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
----
De: "Martin Buchholz" <marti...@google.com>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/jsr166-jdk9-integration/miscellaneous/
aka introducing a new constructor seems to be a regression to me,
the less overloads we have the better i understand the code.
For "telescoping constructors" and a parameter that's almost always
null, I disagree.
if the parameter is often null, maybe the constructor with 4 parameters is
useless, and next should be set explicitly in the few cases it's needed.
There's also the fear that the VM won't optimize away useless volatile
write to next.
Right. The issue is whether to be explicit about lack of need of a fence,
or to hope that the compiler figures it out. Especially in a component as
commonly used as CHM, being explicit seems like the right choice.
-Doug
