Expecting Integer.valueOf(String) to accept Literal format ...

[Charles Oliver Nutter]

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 at 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 at 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.
> >
>
>