On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 14:04:30 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> What is the performance data that makes justifies this change? Its not enough
> to just want to make things constant.
The current branch is just a refactoring; there's no performance improvement on
MacBook M1 Pro.
Further changes are need
> I propose to make j.t.f.DateTimePrintContext immutable.
>
> Currently, DateTimePrintContext has only one mutable field, optional. This
> can be replaced by adding an optional parameter to the
> DateTimeFormatter.formatTo method.
>
> Immutable DateTimePrintContext can be optimized by escape an
> I propose to make j.t.f.DateTimePrintContext immutable.
>
> Currently, DateTimePrintContext has only one mutable field, optional. This
> can be replaced by adding an optional parameter to the
> DateTimeFormatter.formatTo method.
>
> Immutable DateTimePrintContext can be optimized by escape an
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:27:55 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> I propose to make j.t.f.DateTimePrintContext immutable.
>
> Currently, DateTimePrintContext has only one mutable field, optional. This
> can be replaced by adding an optional parameter to the
> DateTimeFormatter.formatTo method.
>
> Immut
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:27:55 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> I propose to make j.t.f.DateTimePrintContext immutable.
>
> Currently, DateTimePrintContext has only one mutable field, optional. This
> can be replaced by adding an optional parameter to the
> DateTimeFormatter.formatTo method.
>
> Immut
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:27:55 GMT, Shaojin Wen wrote:
> I propose to make j.t.f.DateTimePrintContext immutable.
>
> Currently, DateTimePrintContext has only one mutable field, optional. This
> can be replaced by adding an optional parameter to the
> DateTimeFormatter.formatTo method.
>
> Immut
