Although I rather like [1] it is probably too expensive to use a lambda just to increment the line number. Therefore I am proposing to modify [2] to replace the AtomicBoolean with a boolean[] as in [3].
Thanks, Brian [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.01/ [2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.00/ [3] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8230342/webrev.02/ > On Sep 10, 2019, at 11:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > 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? >
