Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: StringBuilder.append and CharSequence
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:45:25 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <l24qp9$mco$1@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnl45s71.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <l1vfg6$mi$1@dont-email.me> <l202uq$ae1$1@dont-email.me> <slrnl48s79.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <l227v3$f6i$1@dont-email.me> <slrnl4b22r.mol.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <l24fdo$ius$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 20:45:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9185b88a2b5381a82810209530bb8295"; logging-data="22936"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Fv1iEvgHtN/QTCwVA+WmVg31wYl+P++E="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
In-Reply-To: <l24fdo$ius$1@dont-email.me>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RUBxMw2wy5TND/maNmuI+MMhWzY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:25376

On 9/27/2013 10:31 AM, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
> On 2013-09-27 15:30, Andreas Leitgeb allegedly wrote:
>> Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> wrote:
>>> I'd make the toString() as follows to be on the safe side:
>>>    char[] cs = new char[ m_len ];
>>>    Arrays.fill( cs, m_ch );
>>>    return new String(cs);
>>
>> If this is the ONLY safe side, then there wouldn't be a point
>> in implementing a CharSequence in the first place for my task.
>
> Why not? The Standard API's StringBuilder#append(CharSequence), AFAICS,
> does not call toString() -- granted, the JavaDoc stipulates nothing to
> that effect.

I read Andreas's comment as "there's not point introducing a new type if 
a repeated string is just always turned into a regular String anyway."

If your new type can be easily replaced with a static method:

   public static String repeated( char c, int count ) {
     final char[] ca = new char[ count ];
     Arrays.fill( ca, c );
     return new String( ca );
   }

Then there's really no need to introduce a new type.  However I'm not 
100% confident that I'm following his line of thought.