Sample

int-5182c1a52b65-I05

Rewrite eligible decimal integer literals in hexadecimal notation

Matched original source

Lines134

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.8650–1; 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
BTTF0.3030–1; 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 = 0x0; 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.2149.287−70.926
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.4.61−6.915

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -15.372 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-15.372) = 0.

Score0.865

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.133.792+1.46
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 and well-structured. It has a clear class-level Javadoc explaining purpose and usage, followed by clean field declarations with concise comments. The constructors are logically organized, with proper validation and edge-case handling. Methods are short and focused, with one action per line and minimal nesting (only single-level if statements). The escape() and escape(char) methods clearly indicate their logic flow, and comments at key performance optimizations enhance understanding. Variable names like safeMin, safeMax, replacementsLength, and escapeUnsafe are descriptive. The use of early returns (e.g., returning null when no escaping is required) keeps control flow flat and natural. The only minor deductions are for slightly long Javadoc comments in places and a TODO for method naming, but overall the code exemplifies clean, maintainable Java.

Run 2

The code is highly readable, with a clear logical structure and well-documented purpose. The class is organized into fields, constructors, and overridden methods that flow naturally. Javadoc comments explain non-obvious design choices, such as the safe range inversion and performance optimizations. Nesting is minimal and controlled, with only simple conditional blocks. Each method performs a single, clear action, and lines are appropriately granular—no multiple actions per line. The reading flow is natural, moving from construction to the main escape logic to single-character handling. Minor deductions are due to the slightly dense conditional in the `escape` method and reliance on implicit knowledge about the `ArrayBasedEscaperMap` structure.

Run 3

The code is well-structured and readable due to clear separation of concerns, concise helper methods, and thorough Javadoc. Field declarations are organized with explanatory comments, and constructors delegate logically. Nesting is minimal; the escape methods use flat conditional checks and early returns, avoiding deep indentation. Intent is clear: the class efficiently escapes characters using a lookup array and a safe range. Action granularity is appropriate—most lines perform one operation, and conditions are broken into readable expressions. The reading flow is natural, with documentation preceding each method explaining purpose and edge cases. Minor deductions stem from the somewhat complex boolean expression in escape(String) and slight verbosity in comments, but overall readability is high.

Run 1

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized with clear separation of responsibilities. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with at most two nested conditional levels and effective early returns. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and performance considerations; the inverted empty-range representation and compound escape condition require some 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: Consistent formatting and a natural progression from initialization to escaping make the class easy to follow. Minor distractions include the unusual hexadecimal zero initializer, specialized nullable-array syntax, and an unresolved naming TODO.

Run 2

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, public behavior, and subclass extension points are logically organized. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with early returns keeping character escaping straightforward. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement precedence, safe ranges, and performance optimizations; the compound escape condition and inverted empty-range representation require some attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, although constructor documentation repeats information and comments occasionally restate obvious fields. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; standard loop syntax is easy to follow. Reading flow: Consistent formatting and method ordering support natural reading. Minor distractions include the unusual hexadecimal zero initializer, specialized nullable-array syntax, and an unresolved naming TODO.

Run 3

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, public escaping logic, and the subclass extension point are logically organized. 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 precedence, safe ranges, and performance optimizations; the compound escape condition and unusual 0x0 initializer slightly reduce clarity. Code length: Implementation is concise, although constructor documentation repeats information and some field comments restate names. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line; the loop header and combined condition are conventional exceptions. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and the progression from explicit replacements to safe-range checks to fallback escaping are natural. Minor formatting issues, unusual array annotation syntax, and the unresolved naming TODO add small distractions.