im guessing it would fit better on the Collections class instead of String (and on Arrays for, well, arrays)
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Josh Suereth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- []'s Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
