On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 17:59:32 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Please consider this change to make the `float` and `double` versions of
>> `java.lang.Math.abs()` branch-free.
>
> Brian Burkhalter has refreshed the contents of this pull request, and
> previous commits have been removed. The
Ah, if only one could define a type alias Streamable = Supplier>...
> On Aug 15, 2021, at 8:42 PM, Tagir F.Valeev wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:28:23 GMT, CC007
> wrote:
>
>> create Streamable and ParallelStreamable interface and use them in
>> Collection and Optional
>
> Mostly agreed
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:28:23 GMT, CC007
wrote:
> create Streamable and ParallelStreamable interface and use them in Collection
> and Optional
Mostly agreed with Brian. Judging from 7 years of using Stream API, I can say
that this abstraction would not solve any real problem. If you need a way
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:41:54 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Is this what you have been asking @mkarg in #4263 to do? Optimize
> > transferTo() only for FileInputStream? Would it interfere with #4263?
>
> #4263 is the input stream returned by Channels.newInputStream where the
> source may be a
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 19:20:48 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> Please consider this request to add an override
>> `java.io.FileInputStream.transferTo(OutputStream)` with improved performance
>> if the parameter is a `FileOutputStream`.
>
> Brian Burkhalter has updated the pull request
On 15/08/2021 14:29, Brian Goetz wrote:
For the third time: This discussion illustrates why the PR was
premature; the design was not agreed upon first. High-level design
discussions (i.e., "is this a good design", "is this a good idea at
all", "are we solving the right problem", "does it need
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:54:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Does it make **any** real sense to answer your recent questions, provide
> > the proofs, tests and benchmark results (I actually would love to _if_ it
> > makes sense) _or_ will the outcome be that I _must_ drop everything besides
> >
For the third time: This discussion illustrates why the PR was
premature; the design was not agreed upon first. High-level design
discussions (i.e., "is this a good design", "is this a good idea at
all", "are we solving the right problem", "does it need to be solved in
the JDK") should happen
Hello.
I found suspicious condition in method
"java.math.BigInteger#multiply(java.math.BigInteger, boolean)"
It's detected by IntelliJ IDEA inspection 'Constant conditions & exceptions'
```
if (bitLength(mag, mag.length) +
bitLength(val.mag, val.mag.length) >
32L*MAX_MAG_LENGTH) {
