Sample

int-2b0c9b0b84cb-I12

Inline all eligible single-use intermediate local variables

Matched original source

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 Pro180–20; 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 excellent structure and clarity. It demonstrates a logical organization with clear field declarations, well-documented constructors, and methods that follow a natural flow from public API to implementation details. Nesting is minimal with early returns and guard clauses that keep the code flat and easy to follow. Each action is generally on its own line, and variable names clearly express intent (e.g., replacementsLength, safeMin/safeMax). The Javadoc comments are thorough and provide helpful context about usage patterns and performance considerations. Methods are concise and focused, with the escape logic cleanly separated between fast-path array lookup and slow-path character-by-character processing. The only minor deduction is for the complex boolean condition in the escape method's loop, which requires careful reading to parse, and the slight repetition between the two constructor overloads. Overall, this is exemplary Java code that balances thorough documentation with clean implementation.

Run 2

The code is well-structured with clear separation of concerns, logical field ordering, and thorough Javadoc documentation. Nesting is minimal—conditional blocks are shallow and readable. Intent is clearly conveyed through meaningful method and variable names like escapeUnsafe, replacementsLength, and safeMin/safeMax. Code length is appropriate; comments and documentation add value without excess. Action granularity is good, with most lines performing a single operation. Reading flow is natural, moving from fields to constructors to public API to protected methods. The only minor readability costs are the slightly complex conditional in escape(String s) and a few high-level details in method contracts, but these are justified by performance and design constraints.

Run 3

The code is highly readable with clear logical organization, flat structure, and explicit intent. The class has a single responsibility, and each method is concise with one primary action per line. Javadoc comments thoroughly explain behavior, edge cases, and performance considerations. Naming is descriptive, and guard clauses reduce nesting. Minor deductions: the `escape` method contains a compound condition that could be slightly clearer if broken into helper methods, and the `escapeUnsafe` method name is noted as needing improvement. Overall, natural reading flow and minimal nesting make it easy to understand.

Run 1

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, public behavior, and subclass extension points are logically organized. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with only a small nested replacement check; early returns keep paths easy to follow. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and performance optimizations. The compound escape condition and inverted empty-range bounds require slightly more attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, though constructor documentation repeats some explanations and adds reading overhead. 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 navigate. Minor distractions include unusual nullable-array annotation syntax, sparse spacing between field declarations, and an unresolved naming TODO.

Run 2

Code Structure: Fields, constructors, public escaping logic, and the subclass extension point are logically organized. Nesting: Control flow is shallow, with early returns limiting complexity; only the replacement lookup uses two nested conditionals. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement precedence, safe ranges, and performance choices. The compound condition in escape(String) and unusual nullable-array syntax require slightly more attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, although constructor documentation repeats information and some field comments restate names. Action granularity: Each statement generally performs one action, with no compressed multi-statement lines. Reading flow: Initialization proceeds naturally into string scanning, character handling, and fallback escaping. Minor spacing inconsistencies and the unresolved naming TODO slightly reduce polish.

Run 3

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 conditionals and early returns simplifying paths. Clarity of intent: Descriptive names and thorough documentation explain replacement lookup, safe ranges, and subclass responsibilities; the compound escape condition and empty-range normalization require some attention. Code length: Implementation is concise, although repeated constructor documentation adds length. Action granularity: Statements generally perform one action per line, and assignments and checks are clearly separated. Reading flow: The progression from configuration to string scanning, character lookup, and subclass handling is natural. Minor distractions include sparse spacing around imports, unusual type-use annotation syntax, and the unresolved naming TODO.