@Andres: You mentioned that Groovy could benefit from it. Could you
explain it a little bit more so that we could decide based on some usecases?
Oliver
Am 01.12.14 16:13, schrieb Tresch, Anatole:
+1 String support is mandatory. CharSequence for me, often is a good thing, but
sometimes also is simply not needed. Typically it is very useful, where you
have some kind of String handling in place, as it is typical for parsing or
formatting. In cases where you typically pass constant keys only, I see only
limited advantages (or even disadvantages by bloating the API, creating
unnecessary Strings ...).
So I would ask for concrete proposals where to add it, so we can focus
discussion on the concrete cases ;)
-Anatole
-----Original Message-----
From: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Montag, 1. Dezember 2014 09:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: CharSequence instead of String
think we should support String so CharSequence would be another
supported type. Main reason is valueOf(String) or fromString(String)
is common in several specs.
No issues supporting both but not supporting string would be quite
uncommon for me, wdyt?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-01 9:12 GMT+01:00 Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected]>:
Hi,
after our dicussing the data type conversion topic I got the impression what
we should use
1. CharSequence as basic data type
Is this true for all of us?
How does it affect our API? Should we use CharSequence consistently in our
API?
wdyt?
Oliver
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E [email protected]
S oliver.b.fischer
J [email protected]
X http://xing.to/obf
--
N Oliver B. Fischer
A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany
P +49 30 44793251
M +49 178 7903538
E [email protected]
S oliver.b.fischer
J [email protected]
X http://xing.to/obf
