Sample

int-d008501f10aa-I10

Remove about 40% of line-break groups while retaining structure

Matched original source

Lines110

Scores

MethodScoreScale
Posnett00–1; higher is more readable
Scalabrino0.7810–1; higher is more readable
Dorn0.1260–1; higher is more readable
Mi0.2680–1; higher is more readable
LLOC31Logical lines; fewer is more readable
DeepSeek V4 Pro7.670–20; mean of three runs
GPT-6.1 Sol12.330–20; mean of three runs
BTTF0.5140–1; 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.110+44
Byte entropyHow varied the bytes in the source text are. Repeated bytes give a lower value; a more even mixture gives a higher value.4.62−6.93

Intercept 8.87 + feature contributions = -24.564 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-24.564) = 0.

Score0.781

Feature contributions

FeatureValueContribution
(log-odds)
Comment layout frequencyHow frequently the layout switches between lines containing only comments or whitespace and lines containing code.111−2.894
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.147.991−2.603
Comment layout (horizontal)How rapidly the visual pattern of comment characters changes from left to right.147.991+1.583
Identifier layout (vertical)How rapidly the visual pattern of identifier characters changes from top to bottom.109.906+1.126
Indentation frequencyHow rapidly indentation changes from line to line.40+0.646
Operator visual areaThe share of the code’s visual area occupied by operators such as +, =, and *.0.032+0.631
Number layout frequencyHow rapidly the number of numeric values per line changes through the code.40−0.497

Intercept 0.07 + feature contributions = -1.937 (log-odds).
Score = sigmoid(-1.937) = 0.126.

Score0.268
Score31
Run 1

The code has a logical structure and clear intent overall, with good Javadoc documentation. However, readability is significantly reduced by inconsistent formatting. Many lines contain multiple statements (e.g., field declarations, constructor logic, method returns) that should be separated onto individual lines. Braces and method bodies are often collapsed onto single lines, disrupting the natural reading flow and violating one-action-per-line granularity. While nesting depth is low and the core logic is concise, the compact layout makes the code feel tangled and harder to scan than it should be. The structure is fundamentally sound, but poor formatting undermines clarity.

Run 2

The code is functional but suffers from poor formatting and structure. Import statements are collapsed onto single lines, multiple statements appear on the same line, and closing braces are attached to other code, making it difficult to scan. While the class has a clear purpose and the logic is not deeply nested, the physical layout forces the reader to parse dense blocks. Javadoc is thorough and helpful, but comments are sometimes embedded awkwardly between statements. The method and field order is logical, but the disorganized presentation significantly reduces readability. Overall, the intent is clear, but the implementation is visually tangled and unnecessarily hard to follow.

Run 3

The code has reasonable high-level organization and intent, but readability is severely degraded by formatting. Multiple statements are packed onto single lines (constructors, loops, conditionals), violating action granularity and disrupting reading flow. Indentation is inconsistent and braces are often inline, making block boundaries hard to follow. Javadocs are present and helpful, but the compressed code layout undermines clarity. Nesting is shallow, which is positive, but the visual clutter negates that benefit. Variable names are meaningful, yet the lack of separation between actions and inconsistent whitespace makes the logic hard to scan. Overall, the code's structure and documentation are good, but its formatting makes it unnecessarily difficult to read.

Run 1

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but compressed formatting obscures their boundaries. Nesting: Shallow loops and conditionals are easy to follow, with at most two nested control-flow levels. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation clearly explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and fallback escaping. Code length: Implementation is reasonably concise, though constructor documentation is repetitive and dominates the snippet. Action granularity: Multiple imports, assignments, conditionals, and closing braces share lines, reducing scanability; some trailing comments appear to describe the next field rather than the current one. Reading flow: The algorithm follows a natural sequence, but inconsistent spacing, inline method bodies, and documentation immediately following closing braces repeatedly interrupt reading.

Run 2

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but compressed formatting obscures their boundaries. Nesting: Shallow loops and conditionals keep complexity manageable; early returns simplify control flow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and detailed documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and subclass responsibilities. Code length: Implementation is concise, though repeated constructor documentation adds bulk. Action granularity: Several lines combine imports, assignments, conditionals, and closing braces, making individual operations harder to distinguish. Reading flow: The algorithm follows a natural sequence, but inconsistent spacing, misplaced inline comments, and documentation starting immediately after closing braces interrupt scanning. Overall, clear semantics and modest complexity are undermined by poor layout.

Run 3

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, and escaping methods are logically organized, but compressed formatting obscures their boundaries. Nesting: Shallow loops and conditionals keep control flow manageable. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation clearly explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and fallback escaping. Code length: Implementation is concise; extensive, partly repetitive documentation adds reading overhead but provides useful context. Action granularity: Multiple imports, assignments, conditionals, and closing braces share lines, reducing scanability and violating one-action-per-line conventions. Reading flow: Inconsistent spacing, misplaced inline comments, and documentation beginning immediately after closing braces interrupt otherwise natural progression. Overall, the logic is understandable, but formatting significantly weakens readability.