On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 14:04:27 GMT, Claes Redestad <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/AbstractStringBuilder.java line 1714:
>>
>>> 1712:
>>> 1713: private void inflateIfNeededFor(String input) {
>>> 1714: if (COMPACT_STRINGS && (coder != input.coder())) {
>>
>> I'm not completely sure whether it's a good idea in terms of
>> maintainability, but I think this can be simplified a bit more. Currently in
>> both `String` and `ASB` we have implementations of `coder()` very much alike:
>>
>> // ASB
>> final byte getCoder() {
>> return COMPACT_STRINGS ? coder : UTF16;
>> }
>>
>> //String
>> byte getCoder() {
>> return COMPACT_STRINGS ? coder : UTF16;
>> }
>>
>> Here we have this condition
>>
>> if (COMPACT_STRINGS && (coder != input.getCoder())) {}
>>
>> where the right operand of `&&` is evaluated only when `COMPACT_STRINGS` is
>> `true` and hence it always returns the value of `coder` field. This means we
>> can reference it directly as
>>
>> if (COMPACT_STRINGS && (coder != input.coder)) {}
>
> I'm not sure if this'd give us enough to motivate the refactor, especially
> since we'd have to widen the visibility of `String.coder`. Maybe startup
> could be helped a little. Either way it feels out of scope for this change,
> don't you think?
Agree
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5291
