On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 19:29:45 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 19:29:45 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in Objects.toDefaultString(). This method is analagous t
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 23:20:37 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in Objects.toDefaultString(). This method is analagous t
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in Objects.toDefaultString(). This method is analagous t
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:48:48 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in Objects.toDefaultString(). This method is analagous t
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:57:10 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:57:10 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
>> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
>> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
>> as
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:22:33 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Respond to review feedback.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java line 170:
>
>> 168: * {@return a s
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in Objects.toDefaultString(). This method is analagous t
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:15:20 GMT, Joe Darcy wrote:
> While it is strongly recommend to not use the default toString for a class,
> at times it is the least-bad alternative. When that alternative needs to be
> used, it would be helpful to have the implementation already available, such
> as in
13 matches
Mail list logo
