I feel like this is an obvious API gap that should be fixed. If it is a valid syntax in javac, it should be a valid syntax in JDK APIs. My first impression was that this was an obvious oversight.
- Charlie (mobile) On Apr 9, 2016 21:04, "Christoph Engelbert" <m...@noctarius.com> wrote: > Hey Andrew, > > Not sure it would risk breaking compatibility. It’s fairly easy to support > it by just replacing underscore before parsing. Do you think of code that > is expected to not parse underscore arguments? I think it’s a fair request > to support underscore based integer representations, even though I never > needed it yet, anyhow it makes sense to me to give users the possibility to > have the same integer representation in, let’s say, properties files. > > Chris > > > On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:06, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 08/04/16 23:36, kedar mhaswade wrote: > >> As library writers however, how would you explain this mismatch? > > > > Changing valueOf(String) runs the risk of breaking existing Java code, > > and Java takes compatibility very seriously. Whether it's worth the > > risk is a matter of judgement. > > > > Andrew. > > > >
