Hi Daniel, Thanks for the idea. It seems a little strange to me though to have the incrementing being done in a separate method. It feels a little disconnected.
I wrote up an alternative [1] which instead passes a functional interface to the readLine() in BufferedReader. This eliminates creating an AtomicBoolean and avoids using a boolean[] parameter like a pseudo-pointer. Thanks, Brian [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.01/ > On Sep 10, 2019, at 7:57 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 09/09/2019 15:35, Roger Riggs wrote: >> - Is the use of AtomicBoolean due to concurrency concerns? >> If not, a new boolean[1] would be less overhead > > Alternatively, BufferedReader could define an empty package > method called e.g. > > void endOfLine() { }; > > that LineNumberReader could override to increment lineNumber. > > So: > > 351 if (term != null) term.set(true); > > would simply become > > 351 endOfLine(); > > which would be a no-op for BufferedReader but would increment > lineNumber for LineNumberReader. > > Wouldn't that work too?
