On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> I've rolled the code back. Now I'm thinking the following are
>> candidates to roll back to String:
>>
>> public static String stripAccents(CharSequence input) {
>> public static
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> I've rolled the code back. Now I'm thinking the following are
> candidates to roll back to String:
>
>public static String stripAccents(CharSequence input) {
>public static String capitalize(CharSequence cs) {
>public static Strin
I've rolled the code back. Now I'm thinking the following are
candidates to roll back to String:
public static String stripAccents(CharSequence input) {
public static String capitalize(CharSequence cs) {
public static String uncapitalize(CharSequence cs) {
and the following are candid
Agreed (apologies for the delay; life got, and is going to remain, very busy).
We should remove the CharSequence code I added. We should also review
the first batch of CharSequence changes.
I think it's fine to have this:
public int length(CharSequence seq)
I'll look into the removal if no one
On 18 March 2011 03:56, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Something occurred to me today. We're moving from String to
> CharSequence in the API, but not thinking of the use case.
>
> If I call:
>
>StringUtils.toLowerCase(stringBuffer);
>
> I'd argue that the likely style would be to modify the object bei
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
>> to CharSequence.
>>
>> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
>> This seems f
Yeah, I didn't stress the "will want a name change if made public"
enough in the comment higher up in the file. I wanted a style that
wasn't overlapping with the public StringUtils classes; that one is
sequenceToString more to keep in sync with the other methods than
because it's a good name.
It's
Note the .toString() on the end.
Hen
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Looking at:
>
> public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> I wonder why it is not:
>
> public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> You think that would break call
Looking at:
public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
I wonder why it is not:
public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
You think that would break call sites is why. But when I look at the impl,
the last line is:
return StringUtils.subSequence(seq, seq.le
Minor nit:
String sequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
should be:
String toString(CharSequence cs)
because the we do not need to add the method arg type to the method name. If
we did, we should use:
String charSequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
which I do not like.
Gary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
> to CharSequence.
>
> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
> This seems fair, CharSequenceUtils is never going to get a lot of
> methods
On Aug 8, 2010, at 7:53 PM, James Carman wrote:
> +1. I'm good with that. I think that's where most people would tend
> to look. I would doubt if most folks even know that the CharSequence
> interface exists.
>
Add my +1 to the pile. -Matt
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Henri Yandell w
+1. I'm good with that. I think that's where most people would tend
to look. I would doubt if most folks even know that the CharSequence
interface exists.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> So I'm wondering if this should exist, or if it should stay in StringUtils.
>
> Pers
So I'm wondering if this should exist, or if it should stay in StringUtils.
Personally I think String is a good colloquialism for CharSequence and
we don't need to create a new class.
i.e.
StringUtils.length(CharSequence) == good.
Hen
---
14 matches
Mail list logo
