RFR(S): 8055032: Improve numerical parsing in java.net and sun.net

[Claes Redestad]

On 08/14/2014 01:30 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 14/08/2014 10:32, Claes Redestad wrote:
>> :
>>
>> Any particular place where you think readability becomes a problem? 
>> I've grown fond of the
>> parseInt(s, radix, offset) form myself, but I'm biased. ;-)
> It's somewhat subjective but when a method has a sequence of 
> parameters that are the same type (int in this case) then reading the 
> code requires a bit of extra effort to match up the parameters.
>
> Looking at this again then I just wonder if the radix should be last 
> parameter rather than having it appear before the range. I think it 
> would be clearer if the  range were to follow the CharSequence rather 
> than having the radix appear in the middle. I didn't have cycles to 
> follow the recent discussion/review on core-libs-dev when these 
> methods were added. Did the ordering come up?

Noone brought it up, as far as I can recall. Since parseInt(String, int 
radix) already existed, I figured adding the range parameters to the end 
would be overall less awkward than to push the radix parameter right in 
the new methods. The chosen implementation maintains that the second 
parameter is always radix, which I think helps maintain consistency.

/Claes

>
> -Alan.