Question about IO.println

[David Alayachew]

Hey Stuart,

Thanks for the response. Just to confirm, you are saying that IO.println
would have a method that takes in StringTemplates? Or is it a case of
calling join on our tenplates, and the IO API remains unchanged?

Either way, StringTemplates are going to have a rippling effect on the Java
ecosystem. I'm excited for it.

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025, 4:14 PM Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Our goal with the IO class is to have it add as few mechanisms as
> possible. Anything
> it can do, one should easily be able to do with existing classes like
> PrintStream or
> BufferedReader. So, we wouldn't add a varargs method to IO itself without
> having one
> in PrintStream or something.
>
> Now, should PrintStream have a varargs overload of println? Well, println
> first
> appeared in JDK 1.0 well before varargs existed and the answer then was to
> use the +
> string concatenation operator for multiple values. This still works,
> though there
> are cases where it doesn't work very well.
>
> When varargs was added (5.0) PrintStream got printf with varargs, but
> println wasn't
> retrofitted with varargs.
>
> And there will be string templates, which will allow one to embed multiple
> values
> unobtrusively, so there's no need for varargs here. And a string templates
> should be
> directly usable from IO.println, so it'll come for "free".
>
> Thus I don't see a need to add varargs overloads here.
>
> s'marks
>
>
>
> On 3/4/25 5:03 AM, David Alayachew wrote:
> > Hello Amber Dev Team and Core Libs Dev Team,
> >
> > Another reddit discussion popped up today about IO.println(), and one of
> the
> > comments mentioned that they wanted something along the lines of this.
> >
> > IO.println(num1, num2, num3); //prints out "1 2 3"
> >
> > I proposed that maybe a better option would be a String.join overload.
> So, instead
> > of String.join(String delim, String... elements), there would be
> String.join(String
> > delim, Object... elements), with each object getting toString() called
> on it.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on either of these ideas? I actually think the
> IO.println()
> > version is nice, but I felt like String.join made a slightly better
> compromise.
> >
> > Another commentor mentioned that this will be easier with String
> Templates too, so
> > maybe it is better to wait for that. I don't think String templates are
> a bad idea
> > here, but it also felt like overkill imo. A library function seems like
> a better fit.
> >
> > Thank you for your time and thoughts.
> > David Alayachew
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20250314/460e1415/attachment.htm>