On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:20:36 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <cole...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The order of members matter since C++ initialize them in declared order. >> My opinion when changing this was that it was easier to read when passing >> the only argument to the first member being >> initialized, thus _handshakee must be first member. >> But I should init _active_handshaker in constructor, so added that and >> lined-up. >> >> So before I do any such change please reflect over how the constructor will >> look like. > > I don't understand, you'd have to rearrange the initializers in the > constructor too, but I don't see any order > dependance. Moving over _lock helps, so this is fine. You want a cosmetic change in the member declaration. I'm saying the constructor will look worse. Im asking if you want to trade a worse constructor for that? (all here is extremely subjective :) ) ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/151
