Sponsoring getting 5015163 "(str) String merge/join that is the inverse of String.split()" into JDK 7

[Stephen Colebourne]

Not wishing to confuse the debate, but perhaps the correct place for
this is a static Strings class, that parallels Objects.

We all know that there are lots of possible methods for such a class,
but even if JDK7 had just a few, that would be a good start.

Joe, would you be prepared to sponsor a Strings class, and see join on
there instead of String?

Stephen


2009/10/23 Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at google.com>:
> FYI,
> While I certainly love my "Joiner" baby, and while y'all have blanket
> permission to make use of any of our code you want, I think it's entirely
> appropriate for the JDK to just hit the 80% case with a static method
> directly on String.
> (And yes, the fact that split() is an instance method is a false parallel.)
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Joe Kearney <Joe.Kearney at morganstanley.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> From the peanut gallery, it seems to me that there is a genuine reason to
>> leave join as a static method (if we're not going after the
>> google-collections approach of a Joiner class) in that split acts on one
>> existing String, whereas join creates one from others. On which object would
>> you call the join method? The separator? I know this was covered on this
>> list before, but it still strikes me as looking a little wierd.
>>
>>> ",".join("a", "b", "c")
>>
>> versus
>>>
>>> Joiner.on(",").join("a", "b", "c")
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Joe
>>
>> 2009/10/23 Mark Reinhold <mr at sun.com>
>>>
>>> > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:10:35 +0200
>>> > From: Rémi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr>
>>>
>>> > Le 23/10/2009 03:53, Joe Darcy a écrit :
>>> >> Following up on this, what is the exact revised proposal?
>>> >>
>>> >> In java.lang.String:
>>> >>
>>> >>    public static String join(String separator, Iterable<?> objects);
>>> >>    public static String join(String separator, Object[] objects);
>>> >>    public static String join(String separator, Object first, Object...
>>> >> rest);
>>> >>
>>> >> with analogous methods in StringBuffer and StringBuilder return that
>>> >> type,
>>> >> respectively, instead of String?
>>> >
>>> > I don't know. In my opinion, the main problem with join specified using
>>> > static methods is that split is not currently specified as a static
>>> > method.  Because join is the dual of split, one could find the usage of
>>> > static methods weird.
>>>
>>> I agree.  The join methods should be instance methods, not static
>>> methods.
>>>
>>> - Mark
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Bourrillion @ Google
> internal:  http://go/javalibraries
> external: guava-libraries.googlecode.com
>
>