Chris,
Thanks for the feedback.
What do you think about the following:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~vlivanov/8037210/webrev.01/
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 3/19/14 5:18 AM, Christian Thalinger wrote:
On Mar 18, 2014, at 2:35 PM, John Rose <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Christian Thalinger
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why are we not using an Enum instead of an "untyped" byte?
Byte is moderately typed, in the sense (which I rely on during
development) that you can't assign an int or char to a byte w/o a cast.
That's why it is not just a plain int.
But those values (L_TYPE etc.) are used a lot as numbers, and
specifically as low-level array indexes, and also comparisons (x <
V_TYPE).
To turn them into enums, we'd have to add lots of calls to
'.ordinal()' to turn them right back to numbers. That dilutes
(completely IMO) the value they have as enums to raise the level of
the code.
But without being strongly typed we get bugs like this one:
@Override
- MethodHandle bindArgument(int pos, char basicType, Object value) {
+ MethodHandle bindArgument(int pos, byte basicType, Object value) {
// If the member needs dispatching, do so.
if (pos == 0 && basicType == 'L') {
I’m just saying that for the sake of maintainability and correctness an
Enum would be better.
— John
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
_______________________________________________
mlvm-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev
