On Wed, 14 May 2025 22:19:39 GMT, Stuart Marks <sma...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I meant that the implementation of `subSequence` *might or might not* >> perform copy (so we need to tell the javaDoc reader), while `getChar` >> *clearly* performs a copy as part of it design. So `subSequence` can be >> surprising as this discussion proofs, while `getChars` will not. That was >> Stuart's point with `read`, and that was your point with `CharSequence`. > > @mkarg Please don't invoke my name to try to buttress your arguments. The > calls the Reader.of() instance makes on its backing CharSequence is a > different kind of issue from what promises or guarantees the concrete methods > of the Reader class makes to its subclasses. @stuart-marks Sorry, didn't want to pull you in here, that's why I said, I am just *paraphrasing*. That is correct, it is a different case, but the *final effect* for the caller is the same: If he needs to now whether a copy is made *or not*, he needs to have JavaDocs telling him *how* the new method works inside (whether it calls `subSequence` or whether it calls `getChars`). Otherwise he might make false assumptions about the result. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24728#discussion_r2090314165
