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

[Paul Benedict]

I think the argument for changing Integer.valueOf(String) hinges on the
belief that the method is meant to parse JLS integer syntax. If it is, the
Javadocs don't speak to that responsibility. If it's an omission from the
docs, I would never have guessed.

Regarding how it parses today, I wouldn't be surprised if there are
validation libraries out there using Integer.valueOf(String) for user-input
validation. Good or bad decision, I expect them to exist. They probably
have relied on it not being JLS compliant. So changing the behavior would
break the assumption and their code.

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:00 PM, kedar mhaswade <kedar.mhaswade at gmail.com>
wrote:

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