Sample

int-9672e2cd1359-I08

Select one of ten high-readability unrelated code templates per class

Matched original source

Lines141

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.8390–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.2510–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.4680–1; higher is more readable
LLOC35Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro170–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol150–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.3890–1; 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) { { int factorial = 1; for (int currentFactor = 2; currentFactor <= 4; currentFactor++) { factorial *= currentFactor; } } 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.2345.745−77.41
Source linesThe number of non-empty source lines.141+56.4
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.619−6.928

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -19.068 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-19.068) = 0.

Score0.839

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.142−3.991
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.71+1.719
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.140.832+1.559
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.71−1.208
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.94.303+0.717
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.034+0.61
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.99.972−0.569

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.095 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.095) = 0.251.

Score0.468
Score35
Run 1

The code is highly readable with clear structure, logical organization, and minimal nesting. The class purpose is well-documented via Javadoc, and methods are concise and focused. The nested `if` blocks are flat and use early returns effectively. However, there is a notable anomaly: a stray block of code containing a factorial calculation appears inside `escape(char c)`, which is unrelated and confusing. It breaks the natural reading flow and introduces unnecessary noise. Apart from this defect, the code follows good practices such as one action per line, clear field naming, and compact helper methods.

Run 2

The code is well-structured with clear section separation, comprehensive documentation, and logical field organization. Nesting is minimal—methods use early returns and the conditional in escape() is straightforward. Intent is explicit through meaningful names and detailed Javadoc. Action granularity is appropriate, with one operation per line. The main readability issue is the inclusion of a stray block inside the escape(char c) method that computes a factorial and serves no purpose related to the method, which breaks reading flow and clarity. Additionally, the escape() conditional containing multiple OR conditions could be extracted into a helper method for better readability. These issues slightly detract from an otherwise clean, well-documented implementation.

Run 3

The code is generally well-structured and readable, with clear Javadoc comments explaining purpose and behavior. The class structure is logical, and methods are focused and concise. The use of final fields and clear naming improves clarity. However, there is a major readability flaw: the escape method contains an unnecessary and confusing code block computing a factorial that is completely unrelated to the method's purpose. This block is not only dead code but also misleading, violating clarity of intent and action granularity. Additionally, the line `if ((c < replacementsLength && replacements[c] != null) || c > safeMax || c < safeMin)` is dense and could benefit from being split across lines or into a helper method to improve reading flow. The overall nesting is shallow, which is positive, but the complexity of the boolean condition and the stray factorial block reduce the score.

Run 1

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated factorial calculation disrupts cohesion. Nesting: Generally shallow, with straightforward loops and conditionals; the unnecessary factorial block adds avoidable nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup and safe-range handling, while the unused factorial calculation is unexplained and misleading. Code length: Core logic is concise, though constructor documentation is repetitive and the factorial block adds unnecessary code. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making operations easy to follow. Reading flow: Early returns and consistent method ordering support natural reading, but the abruptly inserted, poorly indented factorial block interrupts the escaping logic.

Run 2

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated factorial calculation disrupts escape(char). Nesting: Generally shallow, with early returns; the redundant factorial block and nested replacement check add minor complexity. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement lookup and safe-range behavior, while the unused factorial calculation has no apparent purpose. Code length: Core logic is concise, though repeated constructor documentation and irrelevant computation add unnecessary length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, making operations easy to follow. Reading flow: Constructor delegation and fast-path-to-fallback escaping read naturally, but the abruptly inserted, poorly indented factorial block interrupts the flow.

Run 3

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but an unrelated factorial calculation disrupts the single-character escape method. Nesting: Mostly shallow, with straightforward loops and early returns; the extraneous block adds unnecessary nesting. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup and safe-range behavior, while the unused factorial calculation has no apparent purpose. Code length: Functional logic is concise, though constructor documentation is repetitive and the factorial block adds avoidable length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, supporting easy scanning. Reading flow: Initialization and escape checks follow a natural sequence, but inconsistent indentation in the inserted block interrupts the flow. Overall, readable production-style code weakened by conspicuous unrelated logic.