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

[joe darcy]

The Project Coin team did file

     JDK-6863378: Project Coin: Consider library support for underscores 
in numbers and binary literals
     https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6863378

back before JDK 7 shipped. This change in question wouldn't be 
unreasonable, but it didn't seem critical either, hence the bug was 
filed and left open to gauge interest, which generally has been slight.

Cheers,

-Joe

On 4/9/2016 7:44 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>