Sounds like a perfectly good reason! - and also that it should be a relatively safe change to implement. Any volunteers? I'd be happy to, but I expect the overhead for having a non-contributor do it would exceed the actual work by several orders of magnitude.
On 11 April 2012 15:45, Rémi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > On 04/11/2012 04:18 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Looking at the source code, it doesn't appear as though there is any >> reason >> to require the input be a String - only length() and charAt() are called, >> which are both declared by CharSequence. Is there a reason I can't fathom, >> or was it an oversight? It would be nice to widen the type for this (and >> potentially other equivalent methods). >> > > Integer.parseInt (1.0 or 1.1) pre-date CharSequence (1.4), > that's why it use a String an not a CharSequence. > > If you don't want to break all already compiled programs, > you can't just replace String by CharSequence because the exact signature > of the method > (with the parameter types) is encoded in the bytecode. > Joe Darcy write a cool blog post on that [1]. > > The best here is to add new methods that takes a CharSequence, move the > code that use > a String in them and change the method that takes a String to delegate to > the one that use > a CharSequence. > > cheers, > Rémi > [1] > https://blogs.oracle.com/**darcy/entry/kinds_of_**compatibility<https://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/kinds_of_compatibility> > > >
