> The current pure Java implementation does two things: it provides a fallback > for pure-interpreter JVMs and it provides the reader with a simple > implementation. > I'm not at all sure we'd want a complex implementation.
I thought this might be the case. > Having said that, if I were looking at a faster pure Java version of > this logic, I'd look at MethodHandles.byteArrayViewVarHandle(). I considered that, but had 2 concerns: 1. creating potential dependency/initialization order issues 2. creating/managing a constant VarHandle that would never be used with normal compiler behavior Overall it sounds like this is not worthwhile. Thanks for taking a look. Brett
