>>> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
>>> À: "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
>>> Cc: "joe darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com>, "core-libs-dev"
>>> <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
>>> Envoyé: Jeu
3/2017 05:41 PM, fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
>
>> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
>>> À: "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
>>> Cc: "joe darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com>, "core-libs-dev"
>>> <core-libs-de
;John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
À: "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
Cc: "joe darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com>, "core-libs-dev"
<core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Juillet 2017 23:05:14
Objet: Re: java.util.Pair
On Jul 13, 2017,
> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com>
> À: "Rémi Forax" <fo...@univ-mlv.fr>
> Cc: "joe darcy" <joe.da...@oracle.com>, "core-libs-dev"
> <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Juillet 2017
On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
>
> Tuples are like an array of value types parameterized by a constant integer
The homogeneous case is pretty simple; most of what you need is
to allow a generic type to be parameterized by an integer. C++ templates
have had
da...@oracle.com>
> À: "Hohensee, Paul" <hohen...@amazon.com>, core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
> Envoyé: Jeudi 13 Juillet 2017 19:22:19
> Objet: Re: java.util.Pair
> Hi Paul,
>
> See the discussion in thread:
>
> http://mail.openjdk.jav
On Jul 13, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Maurizio Cimadamore
wrote:
>
> Maybe automatic refactoring to Map.Entry ? With the new static method added
> in 9, creating one is also very fluent (but I
> know that Entry doesn't convey same meaning as Pair in method
>
; >
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-April/thread.html
> >
> >
> > In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> >
> > On 7/13/2017 10:07 AM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> >> See the ancie
va.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-
> March/003973.html
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-
> April/thread.html
>
> In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
>
> -Joe
>
>
> On 7/13/2017 10:07 AM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
-Joe
On 7/13/2017 10:07 AM, Hohensee, Paul wrote:
> See the ancient https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4947273.
>
> At Amazon, many projects depend on JavaFX to get only a single class,
> See the discussion in thread:
>
>
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-March/003973.html
>
>
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-April/thread.html
>
>
> In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
On 13/07/17 18:22, joe darcy wrote:
Hi Paul,
See the discussion in thread:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-March/003973.html
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-April/thread.html
In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
-Joe
On 7
Hi Paul,
See the discussion in thread:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-March/003973.html
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2010-April/thread.html
In short, no current plans to add java.util.Pair.
-Joe
On 7/13/2017 10:07 AM, Hohensee, Paul wrote
package, both of which we’d like to avoid in the future. So, are there any
plans to add java.util.Pair to JDK10?
Thanks,
Paul
On 30/03/2010 09:08, Weijun Wang wrote:
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might
want to add a new method into it. How about we just make it most
primitive? Simply an immutable and Serializable class, two final
fields, one constructor, two getters (?), and no
in the JDK to prevent the proliferation of yet more Pair
classes in other code bases.
I should know better than to take the bait, below is a first cut at
java.util.Pair.
In equals, instanceof Pair should be instanceof Pair?,?.
Pair is a raw type.
getA()/getB should be renamed to getFirst
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
In equals, instanceof Pair should be instanceof Pair?,?.
Pair is a raw type.
Tangent: there are those of us who believe javac is quite mistaken to issue
a warning on 'instanceof Pair'. (And even if it were right in theory
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:14:59 -0700
From: Kevin Bourrillion kev...@google.com
...
The problem is that classes like Pair simply go that much further to indulge
the desire to never have to create any actual types of our own. When we're
forced to create our own types, we begin to model
Le 31/03/2010 17:34, Kevin Bourrillion a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:31 AM, Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr
mailto:fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
In equals, instanceof Pair should be instanceof Pair?,?.
Pair is a raw type.
Tangent: there are those of us who believe javac is quite
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Rémi Forax fo...@univ-mlv.fr wrote:
(And even if it were right in theory (which I don't think it is), weren't
warnings supposed to be things that would warn you about possible *bugs*?)
possible bug:
the semantics of instanceof Foo and instanceof Foo? is
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Kevin Bourrillion kev...@google.comwrote:
With all due respect, I rest my case. :-)
(Meaning: since you chose such a hypothetical future situation as an
illustration, it suggests that indeed no actual bugs are being prevented
here in the real world.)
We
Please don't add this. I have my own tuple parametric class. In fact it is
easy to do.
http://code.google.com/p/bookjar-utils/source/browse/BookJar-utils/src/util/Tuples.java
However i never use it anymore. It is easy to do use, but really stupid
since the names (first, second, third...) are so
Hi All
There are multiple CRs asking for a java.util.Pair class:
4983155
6229146
4947273
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might want to
add a new method into it. How about we just make it most primitive? Simply an
immutable and Serializable class, two
Weijun Wang wrote:
Hi All
There are multiple CRs asking for a java.util.Pair class:
4983155
6229146
4947273
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might want to
add a new method into it. How about we just make it most primitive? Simply an
immutable
...@sun.com:
Hi All
There are multiple CRs asking for a java.util.Pair class:
4983155
6229146
4947273
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might want
to add a new method into it. How about we just make it most primitive? Simply
, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Weijun Wang weijun.w...@sun.com wrote:
Hi All
There are multiple CRs asking for a java.util.Pair class:
4983155
6229146
4947273
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might want
to add a new method into it. How about we just make it most
Wang weijun.w...@sun.com wrote:
Hi All
There are multiple CRs asking for a java.util.Pair class:
4983155
6229146
4947273
I know such a simple thing can be made very complex and everyone might
want to add a new method into it. How about we just make it most primitive?
Simply
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 13:39, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org wrote:
While I support Kevin´s summary, having a public implementation of
Map.Entry in java.util would be very useful. (Along with making other
private classes public - unmodifiable iterator is one IIRC)
(I´m writing from a slow connection in a national park in Chile)
I meant a decortator for an iterator that wraps the original making it
immutable.
Stephen
On 30 March 2010 16:55, Martin Buchholz marti...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 13:39, Stephen Colebourne scolebou...@joda.org
, is there is there a
corner case that I'm not seeing or is the main reservation the extra method
calls and creation of some well behaved garbage?
Jason
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:01:57 -0400
Subject: Re: java.util.Pair
From: scolebou...@joda.org
To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
(I´m writing from
Pair
classes in other code bases.
I should know better than to take the bait, below is a first cut at
java.util.Pair.
-Joe
package java.util;
import java.util.Objects;
/**
* An immutable pair of values. The values may be null. The values
* themselves may be mutable.
*
* @param A the type
31 matches
Mail list logo