Marco pinged me about various patches of his, and in response I
re-read this whole thread.
I am going to check in this patch. I have three reasons for this,
based on a few thought experiments.
First, I tried to imagine under what conditions Sun could change their
implementation. That is pretty
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > No, I don't mean that. I mean that if we change this behaviour today,
> > we can't guarantee that someone won't chnage it back tomorrow.
>
> Change it back in classpath or in a Sun JRE?
In Classpath.
> For the first point we have mauve.
I s
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> >
> > Right, so if it isn't a bug it can't be a regression.
>
> True! But I made a bug in my patch, fixed in the attached one.
>
> > > >> So as I said, I don't mean to offend you, I just can't fo
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> >
> > Right, so if it isn't a bug it can't be a regression.
>
> True! But I made a bug in my patch, fixed in the attached one.
>
> > > >> So as I said, I don't mean to offend you, I just can't follow
> > > >> why we
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Casey Marshall wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Marco Trudel wrote:
> >
> >> David Daney wrote:
> >>> Casey Marshall wrote:
> In general I really urge against going out of our way to support
> behavior like this.
> >>
> >>
Marco Trudel writes:
> Casey Marshall wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Marco Trudel wrote:
> >
> >> David Daney wrote:
> >>> Casey Marshall wrote:
> In general I really urge against going out of our way to support
> behavior like this.
> >>
> >> Can you explain that fur
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Marco Trudel wrote:
David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
In general I really urge against going out of our way to support
behavior like this.
Can you explain that further? You're against changes that
- keep the specification as correct
On Dec 13, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Marco Trudel wrote:
David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
In general I really urge against going out of our way to support
behavior like this.
Can you explain that further? You're against changes that
- keep the specification as correct as they were before
-
David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:21 PM, David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Marco Trudel wrote:
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator
c) exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassC
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:21 PM, David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Marco Trudel wrote:
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator
c) exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions
as
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:21 PM, David Daney wrote:
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Marco Trudel wrote:
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator
c) exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions
as shown in ComparatorTest.j
Casey Marshall wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Marco Trudel wrote:
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown
in ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.patch fixes it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:56 AM, Marco Trudel wrote:
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as
shown in ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.patch fixes it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
Andrew> This is, of course, the delusion of Write Once, Run Anywhere. :-)
FWIW this particular "reversed" comparison (or others in the same file
in any case) has caught bugs in comparators in the field. I remember
one in Eclipse for example. Unfortunately there's no way to have the
compiler giv
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > >
> > > No. The point is that completely different objects might be passed
> > which
> > > have no relation with each other. A stupid example:
> > >
> > > Object[] o1 = { "22", "23",
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > java.util.Array
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > > > Hey guys
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > Hey guys
> > > > >
> > > > > java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
> > > > > exchanges a[i] an
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > > > Hey guys
> > > > >
> > > > > java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator
> > c)
> > > > > exchanges a[i] and key, this can
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Hey guys
> > >
> > > java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
> > > exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown in
> > > ComparatorTest
Marco Trudel writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Marco Trudel writes:
> > > Hey guys
> > >
> > > java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
> > > exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown
> > in
> > > ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.pa
Andrew Haley wrote:
Marco Trudel writes:
> Hey guys
>
> java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
> exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown in
> ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.patch fixes it.
>
>
> Changelog suggestion:
>
> 2006
Marco Trudel writes:
> Hey guys
>
> java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
> exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown in
> ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.patch fixes it.
>
>
> Changelog suggestion:
>
> 2006-12-13 Marco Trudel
Hey guys
java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(Object[] a, Object key, Comparator c)
exchanges a[i] and key, this can lead to ClassCastExceptions as shown in
ComparatorTest.java. Arrays.patch fixes it.
Changelog suggestion:
2006-12-13 Marco Trudel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* classpath/java/util/Array
24 matches
Mail list logo
