> On Apr 30, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com > <mailto:paul.san...@oracle.com>> wrote: >> An obvious optimization: >> >> 8202398: Optimize Arrays.deepHashCode >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/jdk/deepHashCode-optimize/ >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/jdk/deepHashCode-optimize/> >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202398 >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202398> >> > > I would prefer that the deeply nested ternary expressions be changed to a > more expected if/else if/else > > My brain much prefers code transforming tabular data to "look tabular". >
I think you will like expression switch :-) in the interim i would stick with the less eyebrow raising syntax. > , and the last else throws an InternalError(“Should not reach here”) with > some such message if you really want to express the case of an undetected > array type. > > I'd hope valhalla engineers will catch it before anyone else. In fact, > perhaps it's not too early to add a test as part of the valhalla project now? I believe in principle it should just work (assuming hash code support for values themselves) because an array of values is currently a subtype of Object[]. At some point we do need to investigate the L-world with tests for values and arrays/collections of, that will help test functionality but also expose issues around nulls. The 166 TCK might be a good place to start. Paul.
