RFR(2): 7174936: several String methods claim to always create new String
Stuart Marks
stuart.marks at oracle.com
Thu Nov 21 04:04:25 UTC 2013
On 11/15/13 8:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 14/11/2013 23:56, Stuart Marks wrote:
>>
>> On 11/14/13 2:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>> Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the subSequence
>>> change - you can't weaken the post-condition of CharSequence.subSequence without
>>> breaking subtype substitutability.
>>
>> Yes, in general, what you say about weakening post-conditions is true. In this
>> case, though, I can't see how it can cause any practical harm.
> I've looked through the webrev and read the exchange between you and David.
>
> I think it might be better to leave the subSequence change out for now (the
> @apiNote is fine) and submit another bug to track the discrepancy between the
> spec and implementation. From what I can tell, this has existed since
> CharSequence was added in 1.4, in which case there may be a good argument to
> just document the potential deviation.
OK, I'll remove the String.subSequence change from this changeset and push it
when I get approval.
I've filed this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028757
to cover the CharSequence.subSequence issue and potential spec change. It
probably isn't that much work to do, but it probably is easier to handle it
separately.
s'marks
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list