Sample

int-f2638f2c076b-SRC

Unmodified source class

Lines134

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.8630–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.2720–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.4680–1; higher is more readable
LLOC31Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro17.330–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol180–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.5810–1; higher is more readable

Views

Source code

package com.google.common.escape; import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkNotNull; import com.google.common.annotations.GwtCompatible; import java.util.Map; import org.jspecify.annotations.Nullable; /** * A {@link CharEscaper} that uses an array to quickly look up replacement characters for a given * {@code char} value. An additional safe range is provided that determines whether {@code char} * values without specific replacements are to be considered safe and left unescaped or should be * escaped in a general way. * * <p>A good example of usage of this class is for Java source code escaping where the replacement * array contains information about special ASCII characters such as {@code \\t} and {@code \\n} * while {@link #escapeUnsafe} is overridden to handle general escaping of the form {@code \\uxxxx}. * * <p>The size of the data structure used by {@link ArrayBasedCharEscaper} is proportional to the * highest valued character that requires escaping. For example a replacement map containing the * single character '{@code \}{@code u1000}' will require approximately 16K of memory. If you need * to create multiple escaper instances that have the same character replacement mapping consider * using {@link ArrayBasedEscaperMap}. * * @author Sven Mawson * @author David Beaumont * @since 15.0 */ @GwtCompatible public abstract class ArrayBasedCharEscaper extends CharEscaper { // The replacement array (see ArrayBasedEscaperMap). private final char[][] replacements; // The number of elements in the replacement array. private final int replacementsLength; // The first character in the safe range. private final char safeMin; // The last character in the safe range. private final char safeMax; /** * Creates a new ArrayBasedCharEscaper instance with the given replacement map and specified safe * range. If {@code safeMax < safeMin} then no characters are considered safe. * * <p>If a character has no mapped replacement then it is checked against the safe range. If it * lies outside that, then {@link #escapeUnsafe} is called, otherwise no escaping is performed. * * @param replacementMap a map of characters to their escaped representations * @param safeMin the lowest character value in the safe range * @param safeMax the highest character value in the safe range */ protected ArrayBasedCharEscaper( Map<Character, String> replacementMap, char safeMin, char safeMax) { this(ArrayBasedEscaperMap.create(replacementMap), safeMin, safeMax); } /** * Creates a new ArrayBasedCharEscaper instance with the given replacement map and specified safe * range. If {@code safeMax < safeMin} then no characters are considered safe. This initializer is * useful when explicit instances of ArrayBasedEscaperMap are used to allow the sharing of large * replacement mappings. * * <p>If a character has no mapped replacement then it is checked against the safe range. If it * lies outside that, then {@link #escapeUnsafe} is called, otherwise no escaping is performed. * * @param escaperMap the mapping of characters to be escaped * @param safeMin the lowest character value in the safe range * @param safeMax the highest character value in the safe range */ protected ArrayBasedCharEscaper(ArrayBasedEscaperMap escaperMap, char safeMin, char safeMax) { checkNotNull(escaperMap); // GWT specific check (do not optimize) this.replacements = escaperMap.getReplacementArray(); this.replacementsLength = replacements.length; if (safeMax < safeMin) { // If the safe range is empty, set the range limits to opposite extremes // to ensure the first test of either value will (almost certainly) fail. safeMax = Character.MIN_VALUE; safeMin = Character.MAX_VALUE; } this.safeMin = safeMin; this.safeMax = safeMax; } /* * This is overridden to improve performance. Rough benchmarking shows that this almost doubles * the speed when processing strings that do not require any escaping. */ @Override public final String escape(String s) { checkNotNull(s); // GWT specific check (do not optimize). for (int i = 0; i < s.length(); i++) { char c = s.charAt(i); if ((c < replacementsLength && replacements[c] != null) || c > safeMax || c < safeMin) { return escapeSlow(s, i); } } return s; } /** * Escapes a single character using the replacement array and safe range values. If the given * character does not have an explicit replacement and lies outside the safe range then {@link * #escapeUnsafe} is called. * * @return the replacement characters, or {@code null} if no escaping was required */ @Override protected final char @Nullable [] escape(char c) { if (c < replacementsLength) { char[] chars = replacements[c]; if (chars != null) { return chars; } } if (c >= safeMin && c <= safeMax) { return null; } return escapeUnsafe(c); } /** * Escapes a {@code char} value that has no direct explicit value in the replacement array and * lies outside the stated safe range. Subclasses should override this method to provide * generalized escaping for characters. * * <p>Note that arrays returned by this method must not be modified once they have been returned. * However it is acceptable to return the same array multiple times (even for different input * characters). * * @param c the character to escape * @return the replacement characters, or {@code null} if no escaping was required */ // TODO(dbeaumont,cpovirk): Rename this something better once refactoring done protected abstract char @Nullable [] escapeUnsafe(char c); }

Loading feature diagnosis…

Source regions

Feature contributions

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Halstead volumeHow much symbolic information the code contains. It combines the total number of operators and values with the number of distinct ones.2136.485−70.504
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.134+53.6
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.609−6.913

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -14.947 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-14.947) = 0.

Score0.863

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.135−3.744
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.64+1.477
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.133.812+1.461
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.64−1.048
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.95.548+0.737
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.032+0.633
Identifier layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from left to right. It measures spatial frequency, not the meaning of the names.99.993−0.57

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -0.984 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-0.984) = 0.272.

Score0.468
Score31
Run 1

The code is highly readable with clear structure and purpose. It uses flat nesting, descriptive names, and concise methods. Javadoc explains intent well, and the overall flow is logical and easy to follow.

Run 2

The code is generally well-structured with clear separation of constructors, fields, and methods. Javadoc is thorough, and comments explain non-obvious logic (like safe range handling). Nesting is minimal, and most lines perform one action. However, readability is hindered by a few aspects: the 'escape' method contains a dense conditional expression that combines multiple checks with mixed operators, reducing clarity of intent. The field declarations lack blank lines between them, making the top section slightly less scannable. The code length is justified but could benefit from helper methods for the complex condition. Overall, the code is maintainable and predictable, but not maximally readable due to the compact conditional logic and minor formatting choices.

Run 3

The code is highly readable, exhibiting clear logical organization with well-separated fields, constructors, and methods. Nesting is minimal—only shallow conditionals and loops are used, preserving a flat structure. Intent is explicit through descriptive names, thorough Javadoc, and focused method responsibilities. While some comments (e.g., GWT-specific checks) and method contracts are verbose, they provide necessary context without being excessive. Each line mostly performs one action, and the reading flow is natural: documentation first, then fields, constructors, and methods in a logical sequence. Minor deductions stem from slightly long lines in the escape method condition and verbose Javadoc, but overall it is exemplary, production-quality code.

Run 1

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most two nested conditional levels and early returns. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and subclass behavior; the compound condition in escape(String) requires slightly more attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, though constructor documentation repeats information and some field comments are redundant. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; the conventional loop header is appropriate. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and the progression from string scanning to character handling to the abstract fallback are natural. Minor distractions include tightly grouped imports, unusual type-annotation syntax, and an unresolved naming TODO.

Run 2

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, with constructor delegation avoiding duplicated initialization. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most two nested conditional levels and early returns. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and subclass responsibilities; the compound escape condition and unusual nullable-array syntax require some attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, although repeated constructor documentation and extensive comments slightly increase reading overhead. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making initialization and character processing easy to follow. Reading flow: The progression from configuration to string scanning, character escaping, and the extension hook is natural. Minor distractions include sparse spacing around imports and fields, parameter reassignment when normalizing the safe range, and the unresolved naming TODO.

Run 3

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, with constructor delegation avoiding duplicated initialization. Nesting: Shallow control flow and early returns keep both escaping methods easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement precedence, safe ranges, and subclass responsibilities; the compound escape condition and unusual nullable array syntax require some attention. Code length: Executable code is concise, though constructor documentation repeats information and some field comments are redundant. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, with checks, assignments, and returns clearly separated. Reading flow: Initialization naturally precedes string scanning, individual character handling, and the extension hook. Minor formatting issues, verbose comments, and the unresolved naming TODO slightly reduce otherwise strong readability.