> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:59:35 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Revert removal of a final keyword
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/ObjectStreamConstants.java line 38:
>
>> 36:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:34:49 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nam
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:26:13 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> Per Minborg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Add additional (c) years
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/DataInputStream.java line 582:
>
>> 580: * @se
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:57:11 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nami
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:57:11 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nami
On Mon, 9 Jan 2023 08:57:11 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nami
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:34:12 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard nami
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 17:33:05 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> I have added a new proposal in the hope that the `requireNonNegative` method
>> name and parameters should be trivial enough for users to directly
>> understand without scrolling down. Let me know your thought on this.
>
> That is defi
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:29:20 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
>> I think the casts are worth it to set `lock` only once during construction,
>> but would be inclined to leave out the addition of `checkSize`.
>
> I have added a new proposal in the hope that the `requireNonNegative` method
> name and param
On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 01:42:15 GMT, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> I assume this is done so that "lock" is only set once during construction
>> (StringWriter is a bit unusual in that it uses the SB as the lock object). A
>> downside of the change is that it introduces casts. Another is that the
>> ex
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for constants
> * Javadoc typos
> * Missing final declar
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 16:35:57 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/StringWriter.java line 244:
>>
>>> 242:
>>> 243: private static int checkSize(int initialSize) {
>>> 244: if (initialSize < 0) {
>>
>> Similar checks exist e.g. in `ByteArrayOutputStream` an
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:54:29 GMT, Sergey Tsypanov wrote:
>> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not
>> recommended including:
>>
>> * C-style array declaration
>> * Unnecessary visibility
>> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
>> * Non-standard
On Wed, 4 Jan 2023 15:37:23 GMT, Per Minborg wrote:
> Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
> including:
>
> * C-style array declaration
> * Unnecessary visibility
> * Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
> * Non-standard naming for
Code in java.io contains many legacy constructs and semantics not recommended
including:
* C-style array declaration
* Unnecessary visibility
* Redundant keywords in interfaces (e.g. public, static)
* Non-standard naming for constants
* Javadoc typos
* Missing final declaration
These shou
19 matches
Mail list logo
