On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 00:39:20 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Thanks @rose00 for the writeup and @pavelrappo for asking pertinent followup
>> questions.
>>
>> For me the issue here is that there is a bunch of lore about avoiding
>> `Objects::equals` and it's embodied in comments like this:
>>
>>> NB
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 23:38:01 GMT, Stuart Marks wrote:
> For me the issue here is that there is a bunch of lore about avoiding
> `Objects::equals` and it's embodied in comments like this:
>
> > NB: Do not replace with Object.equals until JDK-8015417 is resolved.
>
> These comments are almost exa
On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 22:03:58 GMT, John R Rose wrote:
>>> Hmm, I think that issue refers to code that have explicit non-Object
>>> parameter types (like `X::equals(Object)boolean` in the issue's sample).
>>> This method already have both arguments as `Object`, so I don't think
>>> there's any ty
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:46:59 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> I'd suggest replacing the calls to `valuesMatch` with `Objects.equals` and
>> remove the `valuesMatch` method as unnecessary.
>
>> I'd suggest replacing the calls to `valuesMatch` with `Objects.equals` and
>> remove the `valuesMatch` method
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 15:33:13 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> I'd suggest replacing the calls to `valuesMatch` with `Objects.equals` and
> remove the `valuesMatch` method as unnecessary.
I'll do something about them soon, Roger. But first I need to understand
JDK-8015417 better, as it also affects oth
> Please review this PR to use modern APIs and language features to simplify
> `equals` and `hashCode` in the java.text area.
>
> * Some changes to `equals` and `hashCode` are refactoring rather than
> modernization. Such changes can be as trivial as rearranging, adding, or
> commenting checks.
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 17:44:52 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
>> You are right, I have no stats. Performance-wise, it's already better than
>> what was there before. Before, there was no short-circuit check. But I can
>> go either way; I don't have a strong opinion.
>>
>> Reusing superclass' equals is n
