http://commons.apache.org/lang/apidocs/org/apache/commons/lang/StringUtils.html#join(java.util.Collection,%20char)

I think this is something like what Reinier wants to see in String.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> what does String.join do?
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah, breaking changes - no chance, at least not for java7.
> >
> > But, there are plenty of API things that would be great to have, and
> > are forwards, backwards, migration, upwards, downwards, sideways, and
> > any other direction - compatible.
> >
> > For example, String.join. I mean, really, now. How can java make a
> > straight-faced claim of 'batteries included' without it?
> >
> > Last I heard, there's going to be a project-coin-like project for API
> > additions. Can't find the source (probably Joe Darcy's weblog at
> > http://blogs.sun.com/darcy/ but I can't find it after a quick scan of
> > project coin-related entries).
> >
> > I assume it won't be launched until at least Project Coin's submission
> > deadline passes (April 1st), but that doesn't give much time for API
> > additions. Then again, something as simple as String.join is coded up
> > and explained fully in a proposal in like an hour.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mar 4, 9:53 am, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Perhaps just making Cloneable and Serializable annotations, while
> >> deprecating the interfaces?
> >>
> >> Although the interfaces will probably not be removed before 1.8 or
> >> (dare I say it) 2.0, it would at least encourage using annotations
> >> the
> >> way they are meant to be used, and interfaces as, well, interfaces!
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Mar 4, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:48 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hey all,
> >>
> >>>> Project Coin is all about small language changes for Java 7, whats
> >>>> the
> >>>> changes of getting a project setup for "small interface/object
> >>>> changes" (although these could be breaking..) to fix some
> >>>> reallllllllllly annoying marker interfaces, i.e.:
> >>
> >>> You are unlikely to ever get a breaking change into core java. On
> >>> the
> >>> other hand, having modules in the language and JRE opens up some new
> >>> possibilities.
> >>
> >>>> * Add clone() to the Cloneable interface, and make Object's
> >>>> implementation abstract (or remove it compleately!) - make all
> >>>> classes
> >>>> in the JDK that implement clone(), implement Clonable (if they
> >>>> don't
> >>>> already)
> >>
> >>>> Is this a crazy idea (quite likely its absurd, but so is Cloneable
> >>>> NOT
> >>>> having clone() as a method.  Any other stupid things like that
> >>>> could
> >>>> be cleaned up (even if they might break a few things along the
> >>>> way?)
> >>
> >>>> ...and then Buffy staked Edward.  The End.
> > >
>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to