It's worth mentioning that, while this algorithm is surely a lot slower than before, it won't slow down HashMap, which already has a fast-path for string keys that does not actually use hashCode().
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM, <amitman...@google.com> wrote: > > LGTM except the simple changes for the test code. Once everyone has > weighed in and the patch is ready to go in, I volunteer to commit it on > your behalf. > > Thanks for the patch! > > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/34811/diff/1/3 > File user/super/com/google/gwt/emul/java/lang/String.java (right): > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/34811/diff/1/3#newcode134 > Line 134: } > LGTM++ > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/34811/diff/1/2 > File user/test/com/google/gwt/emultest/java/lang/StringTest.java > (right): > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/34811/diff/1/2#newcode218 > Line 218: int[] savedHash = new int[testStrings.length]; > LGTM except 2 minor comments: > (i) formatting of the line with "int[] javaHashes" is not consistent > with what we follow for Gwt. > (ii) You can rewrite this function to get rid of the savedHash array. > > http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/34811 > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
