On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:35:58 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> The commentary on this line could probably be improved, but this is in a
>> private printer-parser that will only be used for NANO_OF_SECOND and not any
>> arbitrary `TemporalField` (see line 704), thus I fail to see how this
>> assumpt
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 22:27:08 GMT, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/format/DateTimeFormatterBuilder.java
>> line 3269:
>>
>>> 3267: return false;
>>> 3268: }
>>> 3269: int val = value.intValue(); // NANO_OF_SECOND must fit in
> Prompted by a request from Volkan Yazıcı I took a look at why the java.time
> formatters are less efficient for some common patterns than custom formatters
> in apache-commons and log4j. This patch reduces the gap, without having
> looked at the third party implementations.
>
> When printing
