On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 20:11:11 +0100, Gilles wrote:
> Bottom-line: Don't use clone except to copy arrays.
> So I'd rephrase my comment on the commit: let "clone()" in place
> but with the comment that it's the only acceptable use of it.
OK, I've added such comments :)
(It was also used for copying
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:33:46 -0800, Chas Honton wrote:
Read Bloch. Don’t optimize until you have proven that this bit of
code is causing a significant performance hit.
arrayCopy can and is inlined by jit
https://www.artima.com/intv/bloch13.html
Bottom-line: Don't use clone except to copy arra
Read Bloch. Don’t optimize until you have proven that this bit of code is
causing a significant performance hit.
arrayCopy can and is inlined by jit.
Chas
> On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:53 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> String is still a type of Object (requiring GC handling of reference
> cou
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:53:28 +, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
String is still a type of Object (requiring GC handling of reference
counters), as you can do Object[] o = stringArray.clone(); without
casting. (other way not so)
https://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue124.html says there is
h
String is still a type of Object (requiring GC handling of reference
counters), as you can do Object[] o = stringArray.clone(); without
casting. (other way not so)
https://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue124.html says there is
hardly any difference, so I don't think we need to fight this one
On 16 February 2018 at 10:01, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> I agree in general for .clone() on objects - and I'm trying to move
> away from using .clone() in that Commons RDF fluent mutable/immutable
> builder (See COMMONSRDF-49).
>
> But this is an Object[] - a native type.
Huh?
The code says St
I agree in general for .clone() on objects - and I'm trying to move
away from using .clone() in that Commons RDF fluent mutable/immutable
builder (See COMMONSRDF-49).
But this is an Object[] - a native type.
I must admit I am not sure what is really the preferred way - I
thought .clone() is best
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:40:13 +, sebb wrote:
On 13 February 2018 at 09:31, Gilles
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:16:13 + (UTC), st...@apache.org wrote:
Repository: commons-csv
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/CSV-216 637ad2d7a -> f66a83901
CSV-216: Avoid Arrays.copyOf()
Why?
Agreed
On 13 February 2018 at 09:31, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:16:13 + (UTC), st...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>> Repository: commons-csv
>> Updated Branches:
>> refs/heads/CSV-216 637ad2d7a -> f66a83901
>>
>>
>> CSV-216: Avoid Arrays.copyOf()
>
>
> Why?
Agreed
>> as .clone() will do
>
>
>
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:16:13 + (UTC), st...@apache.org wrote:
Repository: commons-csv
Updated Branches:
refs/heads/CSV-216 637ad2d7a -> f66a83901
CSV-216: Avoid Arrays.copyOf()
Why?
as .clone() will do
We should rather avoid using "clone()".
Gilles
-- at least until someone tries
10 matches
Mail list logo