Re: Expecting Integer.valueOf(String) to accept Literal format ...

[joe darcy]

The Project Coin team did file

    JDK-6863378: Project Coin: Consider library support for underscores 
in numbers and binary literals
    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6863378
back before JDK 7 shipped. This change in question wouldn't be 
unreasonable, but it didn't seem critical either, hence the bug was 
filed and left open to gauge interest, which generally has been slight.

Cheers,

-Joe

On 4/9/2016 7:44 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
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.