On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:21:21 GMT, Jorn Vernee <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 60 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Merge branch 'master' into >> implement-lazy-constants-third-prewiew-exceptions >> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into master >> - Improve TestSegmentOffset and convert to junit >> - Address comments in PR >> - Change the way throwing toString is handled >> - Improve LazyMap tests >> - Harden tests >> - Update code style in if branch >> - Reorder modifiers >> - Merge branch 'master' into >> implement-lazy-constants-third-prewiew-exceptions >> - ... and 50 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/bba732fe...f67028cd > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/LazyConstant.java line 235: > >> 233: * section. >> 234: * >> 235: * @throws NoSuchElementException if this lazy constant is in an >> error state > > I wonder if it's useful to add a corresponding `throws` clause to the method > declaration. I thought javadoc checked this as well, but maybe that's just > for checked exceptions. Yes, I think it is only for checked exceptions. See `Map::get` as an example. > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/LazyConstant.java line 300: > >> 298: * : LazyConstant.of(computingFunction); >> 299: * } >> 300: * } > > This section doesn't feel needed to me. Whether the factory is idempotent or > not seems like a pretty insignificant implementation detail, and the javadoc > already states that a new instance is returned. I've gotten a lot of feedback/suggestions to return `this` if the `Supplier` already is a `LazyConstant` so that's why I added this. To avoid such comments in the future and to clearly communicate this was a deliberate design decission. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30194#discussion_r3161232904 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30194#discussion_r3161244158
