[loc-en-dev] Locale.clone()

[Naoto Sato]

Thanks. As to the use case, I cannot think of one for Locale.clone() in 
the first place.

Naoto

On 8/31/10 7:46 AM, Yoshito Umaoka wrote:
> OK. Although I cannot imagine any real use cases which will be broken by
> such change, this is irrelevant to our goals.
> Therefore, I'll leave it as is. Instead, we may open a bug for this and
> discuss about it separately.
>
> -Yoshito
>
> Naoto Sato wrote:
>> I agree that Locale object is immutable and implementing Cloneable
>> sounds wrong in the first place, I am not so sure we could change it
>> this time. Here is the javadoc description from Object.clone():
>>
>> ---
>> The general intent is that, for any object x, the expression:
>>
>> x.clone() != x
>>
>> will be true, and that the expression:
>>
>> x.clone().getClass() == x.getClass()
>>
>> will be true, but these are not absolute requirements.
>> ---
>>
>> Although it says that x.clone() != x is not an absolute requirement,
>> Locale has been adopting this since beginning (I believe) so some apps
>> could rely on it. So unless there is a strong reason to change this
>> behavior, I would just leave as it is.
>>
>> Naoto
>>
>>
>> On 8/30/10 7:28 PM, Yoshito Umaoka wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> An instance of Locale is immutable. Therefore, you do not need clone().
>>> For now, Locale.clone() calls super.clone() - but I do not think this is
>>> actually necessary.
>>> I think Locale.clone() should be just { return this; }.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Any objections?
>>>
>>> -Yoshito
>>
>>
>