On Sat, 10 Oct 2026 14:16:13 GMT, Kevin Rushforth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Makes sense! Also not a fan of a static initializer. >> >> I think what Andy meant though (thats at least how I understood it), is that >> maybe some of those variables can be initialized directly by a one-liner, as >> the code got a bit shorter. But this is also not possible in a good way. > >> This pattern was [deliberately >> introduced](https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1608#discussion_r1819938688) >> so that static constants can be initialized from an expression. > > Right, I remember now. This keeps the changes localized without introducing a > bunch of static helper methods. Yes, it was done as as to minimize the diff as a part of a larger PR. It is probably ok since it's a slightly heavier variant of a static initializer (one extra allocation, I think). I just don't want someone looking at this code and saying, "oh cool idea, let's do it everywhere". ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2299#discussion_r4249162771
