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

[kedar mhaswade]

Thanks Joe, for the bug report!

I am a bit unsure about gauging interest in this by looking at the votes on
the bug report because I expected this to just work, especially since the
API was already there! To me, not having this behavior in the platform is a
violation of POLA [1].

I was thinking harder on the compatibility concerns raised on this thread,
but the fact that JDK team itself filed this bug removed them!

But I guess I will live with the status quo.

1- http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrincipleOfLeastAstonishment

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 9:44 AM, joe darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>