I feel like this is an obvious API gap that should be fixed. If it is a valid syntax in javac, it should be a valid syntax in JDK APIs. My first impression was that this was an obvious oversight. - Charlie (mobile) On Apr 9, 2016 21:04, "Christoph Engelbert" <me@noctarius.com> wrote:
Hey Andrew,
Not sure it would risk breaking compatibility. It’s fairly easy to support it by just replacing underscore before parsing. Do you think of code that is expected to not parse underscore arguments? I think it’s a fair request to support underscore based integer representations, even though I never needed it yet, anyhow it makes sense to me to give users the possibility to have the same integer representation in, let’s say, properties files.
Chris
On 09 Apr 2016, at 11:06, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
On 08/04/16 23:36, kedar mhaswade wrote:
As library writers however, how would you explain this mismatch?
Changing valueOf(String) runs the risk of breaking existing Java code, and Java takes compatibility very seriously. Whether it's worth the risk is a matter of judgement.
Andrew.