(I've already committed this change...)
Paul and Ivan, I see your point, but perhaps writing a commented out
dataStructureInvariants method should be some kind of best practice, at
least for classes where we're not willing to pay the bytecode cost of
having the assertions be real code. This is n
On Jun 26, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Hi Ivan, I'd like you to do a code review.
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8050091
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/LinkedList-invariant/
I would prefer if there was some text with the commented out metho
Hi Martin!
I agree that since the commented code only contains an assert statement,
it's unlikely to be confused with a "real" method.
It is helpful to have the invariants documented, so yes, it looks good.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 30.06.2015 0:56, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29,
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
wrote:
>
>
> On 27.06.2015 21:54, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ivan Gerasimov > wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin!
>>
>> Thank you for this cleanup!
>> Removal of wrong comments looks fine.
>>
>> But your webrev contains comm
On 27.06.2015 21:54, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Hi Martin!
Thank you for this cleanup!
Removal of wrong comments looks fine.
But your webrev contains commented checkInvariants() method.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Ivan Gerasimov
wrote:
> Hi Martin!
>
> Thank you for this cleanup!
> Removal of wrong comments looks fine.
>
> But your webrev contains commented checkInvariants() method.
> Is it a leftover from debugging or something?
>
It could be used for debugging, but it's
Hi Martin!
Thank you for this cleanup!
Removal of wrong comments looks fine.
But your webrev contains commented checkInvariants() method.
Is it a leftover from debugging or something?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
On 26.06.2015 23:04, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hi Ivan, I'd like you to do a code review.
