On 10/31/2013 1:38 PM, John Rose wrote:
On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Mandy Chung <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Nit: maybe better to merge two constructors to explicitly specify if
it wants to skip the parameter validations (not sure if there is any
reason for the rtype and ptypes parameter order is different in the
two ctors)
107 private MethodType(Class<?> rtype, Class<?>[] ptypes, boolean
trusted) {
118 private MethodType(Class<?>[] ptypes, Class<?> rtype) {
The backwards constructor is dangerous since it doesn't check
parameters; I don't want it to be used by accident.
There isn't a good design pattern for this; I want a constructor named
"fake_MethodType_for_table_probe".
That's what I want too.
I suppose I could have used as leading argument of type Unsafe to mark
the condition.
A flag does not seem clear enough. I don't want to factor together
checked and unchecked versions of the constructor.
I will add a comment about the odd constructor. Should I add a
strange extra argument instead of swapping the parameters, or is that
overkill?
Either way would help. I actually like the idea of adding a leading
Unsafe argument that speaks for itself and I presume it doesn't impact
the performance.
Mandy
