Hello, actually Integer.decode is used to parse JLS Integers. And its JavaDoc explicitely state that it does not support underscores. I would have changed that method, not the valueOf.
I think there are some legit cases where changing the behavior of valueOf can cause problems. It is (unfortunatelly) often used to verify the format of a number (instead of retrieving its value). And if this verificationsuddenly gets more lenient it might let numbers pass which makes problems in other (possibly non-java) places. Gruss Bernd Am Sat, 9 Apr 2016 21:22:01 +0600 schrieb "Tagir F. Valeev" <amae...@gmail.com>: > Strictly speaking there are many more ways to specify integer constant > in Java. Like > > int x = 045; > int x = 0x34; > int x = 0b11101; > > So why should we support "4_5_6" only, but not "0x456"? Note that > "045" is already parsed by Integer.valueOf, but as decimal number, not > as octal. Thus I don't think that being valid syntax in Java language > should be considered as a reason here. > > Also note that there are more integer parsing methods like > Scanner.nextInt() and so on. I feel that they should provide > consistent behavior with Integer.valueOf(). However changes in Scanner > might break even more existing code. > > With best regards, > Tagir Valeev. > > CON> I feel like this is an obvious API gap that should be fixed. If > CON> it is a valid syntax in javac, it should be a valid syntax in > CON> JDK APIs. My first impression was that this was an obvious > CON> oversight. > > CON> - Charlie (mobile) > CON> On Apr 9, 2016 21:04, "Christoph Engelbert" <m...@noctarius.com> > CON> 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. > >> > > >> > >> >
