Hey Stuart, Thanks for the response. Just to confirm, you are saying that IO.println would have a method that takes in StringTemplates? Or is it a case of calling join on our tenplates, and the IO API remains unchanged?
Either way, StringTemplates are going to have a rippling effect on the Java ecosystem. I'm excited for it. On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, 4:14 PM Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Our goal with the IO class is to have it add as few mechanisms as > possible. Anything > it can do, one should easily be able to do with existing classes like > PrintStream or > BufferedReader. So, we wouldn't add a varargs method to IO itself without > having one > in PrintStream or something. > > Now, should PrintStream have a varargs overload of println? Well, println > first > appeared in JDK 1.0 well before varargs existed and the answer then was to > use the + > string concatenation operator for multiple values. This still works, > though there > are cases where it doesn't work very well. > > When varargs was added (5.0) PrintStream got printf with varargs, but > println wasn't > retrofitted with varargs. > > And there will be string templates, which will allow one to embed multiple > values > unobtrusively, so there's no need for varargs here. And a string templates > should be > directly usable from IO.println, so it'll come for "free". > > Thus I don't see a need to add varargs overloads here. > > s'marks > > > > On 3/4/25 5:03 AM, David Alayachew wrote: > > Hello Amber Dev Team and Core Libs Dev Team, > > > > Another reddit discussion popped up today about IO.println(), and one of > the > > comments mentioned that they wanted something along the lines of this. > > > > IO.println(num1, num2, num3); //prints out "1 2 3" > > > > I proposed that maybe a better option would be a String.join overload. > So, instead > > of String.join(String delim, String... elements), there would be > String.join(String > > delim, Object... elements), with each object getting toString() called > on it. > > > > What are your thoughts on either of these ideas? I actually think the > IO.println() > > version is nice, but I felt like String.join made a slightly better > compromise. > > > > Another commentor mentioned that this will be easier with String > Templates too, so > > maybe it is better to wait for that. I don't think String templates are > a bad idea > > here, but it also felt like overkill imo. A library function seems like > a better fit. > > > > Thank you for your time and thoughts. > > David Alayachew > >
