Thanks for the feedback, so we just need to decide on the variable name.. I am leaning towards isLatin1Decodable since it is closer to implying the charset is decodable to Latin1 via the decodeToLatin1() method, whereas isLatin1Compatible sort of implies it is "compatible" and decodable in certain circumstances like ASCIICompatible is, which is not the case here. So Roger, you ok with isLatin1Decodable/LATIN1DECODABLE ?
Cheers Andrew Andrew Leonard Java Runtimes Development IBM Hursley IBM United Kingdom Ltd internet email: andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com From: Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> To: Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com>, Andrew Leonard <andrew_m_leon...@uk.ibm.com> Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Date: 07/10/2019 13:07 Subject: Re: RFR: 8231717: Improve performance of EBCDIC charset decoding for COMPACT_STRINGS On 2019-10-04 21:55, Roger Riggs wrote: > Can you change the name to LATIN1COMPATIBLE? > Its similar to the ASCIICOMPATIBLE case and tied in to the Latin1 coding > for used in StringCoding. To me, compatible has a specific meaning that's not really the case here. Perhaps isLatin1Decodable/LATIN1DECODABLE would roll better of the tongue? This would also align nicely with the decodeToLatin1 method. Patch looks good to me as-is, though. Thanks! /Claes Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
