On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:47, Rémi Forax wrote:
> Do you want to say something like "I need a closure here" :)
>
>
No. I need a macro here! (But not a C-style one)
Martin
Le 16/11/2009 00:48, Martin Buchholz a écrit :
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 20:46, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems
mailto:david.hol...@sun.com>> wrote:
Paul,
Paul Benedict said the following on 11/15/09 11:28:
I would like to propose adding this method:
/**
* S
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 20:46, David Holmes - Sun Microsystems <
david.hol...@sun.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Paul Benedict said the following on 11/15/09 11:28:
>
> I would like to propose adding this method:
>>
>> /**
>> * Selects the object if not {...@code null}; otherwise fallsback to the
>> *
Paul,
No it is not rhetorical. Most of the one-liners (and I don't necessarily
agree with them either) at least have some perceived convenience value.
In this case I see no value add at all. In fact unless you count on
inlining then this adds pure overhead with the method call.
David
Paul B
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to ask what the status unicode support for executing
processes on Windows is.
:
I've cc'ed Heiko Wagner - he was running with this in March
(http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-March/001231.html).
I haven't seen any further discussion
I put a combined changeset fixing bugs 4421494 and 4396272
as comment #2 and comment #3 to OpenJDK bugzilla report:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/show_bug.cgi?id=100119
-Dima
Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
Hello Joe,
Thank you for the sponsorship of the bug 4421494.
I can als
Hi,
I'd like to ask what the status unicode support for executing
processes on Windows is.
Earlier this year there was a patch submitted to address this problem
( http://tinyurl.com/yl4jtv3 ) but the thread seems to have died
without getting the patch applied.
Looking at ProcessImpl_md.c it stil
David,
I think your question is mostly rhetorical. Most of the code in this
class are one-liners. If you can answer it for this method, you have
answered it for all.
I also think it's a common idiom... and so are the other small stuff in here.
Paul
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Holmes
