Hello,
I've recently learned about JDK 12's new String::transform method:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203703
Obviously, this is useful. And obviously, this would be far more useful as
a general pattern than just something for String. E.g. why not also for any
Number subtype. For Boo
Hello Naoto.
I appreciate your suggestion.
I modified IBMBugs.java testcase.
Could you review the fix again ?
Bug:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8220281
Change: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~itakiguchi/8220281/webrev.01/
Did you mean "does not have"?
Thank you for your confirma
We should stop discussing this here, but ...
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:51 AM Peter Levart wrote:
>
> In this particular case, this is not true. A lambda that captures no
> local or instance state is lazily constructed just once (when the lambda
> expression is 1st evaluated) and then it is used
On 08/03/2019 17:35, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
Bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8074817
Fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shade/8074817/webrev.03/
This hopefully resolves warnings in libverify. See bug report for warnings list.
This looks okay to me (we should probably have fix
- Mail original -
> De: "Martin Buchholz"
> À: "Tagir Valeev"
> Cc: "core-libs-dev"
> Envoyé: Vendredi 8 Mars 2019 21:35:59
> Objet: Re: JDK 13 RFR of JDK-8220346: Refactor java.lang.Throwable to use
> Objects.requireNonNull
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 3:57 AM Tagir Valeev wrote:
>
>> H
(forgot to send to the list also, so this one if for the list...)
On 3/9/19 3:12 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
As an old lisper, I would personally love to see syntactic
abstraction, but also understand that this is not in the spirit of Java.
Given the lack of syntactic abstraction, writing all o
