A set of minor wording fixes in Javadoc:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256
Comments welcome.
Stephen
Hi Stephen,
This could be construed as a spec-change, even if a typo :(
- * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw a {@code
DateTimeException}.
+ * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw an {@code
UnsupportedTemporalTypeException}.
David
On 19/02/2014 8:54
On 19/02/2014 11:08, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
This could be construed as a spec-change, even if a typo :(
- * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw a {@code
DateTimeException}.
+ * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw an {@code
On 19/02/2014 9:29 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Could or would? Who decides...
Officially I have no idea. I would think the criteria would be to consider:
a) what the code actually does
b) whether there is a TCK test for it
Though if (b) holds then it must be that the code does what is
Hi Stephen!
May I ask you to add some more typo fixes to your patch?
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
diff a/src/share/classes/java/time/OffsetTime.java
b/src/share/classes/java/time/OffsetTime.java
- * This will result in the old and new objects representing the
same instant an an implied day.
+
On 19 February 2014 11:39, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 19/02/2014 11:08, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
This could be construed as a spec-change, even if a typo :(
- * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and throw a {@code
DateTimeException}.
+ * which are too
On 19/02/2014 10:04 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
On 19 February 2014 11:39, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote:
On 19/02/2014 11:08, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
This could be construed as a spec-change, even if a typo :(
- * which are too large to fit in an {@code int} and
Patch updated:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256
with differences:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256/revisions
thanks for the spots,
Stephen
On 19 February 2014 11:58, Ivan Gerasimov ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Stephen!
May I ask you to add some more typo fixes to
Hi,
These would be fine for 9 but I would not backport them to 8 because they
do not add significant value and do create differences between the
specification
and the javadoc. Any difference creates an overhead that a person has
to resolve
even if it turns out to be a no-op.
I would update
