I, personally, have been indicating holes in Sun's spec using bolded
sections of the javadoc documentation, like this: <STRONG>Spec
Note:</STRONG> This spec sucks. And anything indicating my implementation
where Sun left reasonable holes in the spec (things that don't really affect
behavior), I use <STRONG>Implementation Note:</STRONG>
Does this sound about right? Maybe we should even have an @specnote tag.
--John Keiser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fisher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Fisher
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 1998 7:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Monkeys working on i18n
>
>
> I believe we should start a "FAQ" which deals with non-minor
> differences between GNU Classpath and Sun's implementation of Java.
>
> Since most of the Java API is not specified in the JLS, there are many
> areas which leave room for interpretation. Generally, the right thing
> to do is to do whatever Sun's implementation does. However, if Sun's
> implementation seems brain dead (or just plain wrong), we shouldn't
> follow their path. In that case, whatever path we take, we should
> probably document it.
>
> For instance, a good portion of Sun's java.lang.Character is not
> defined in the JLS. For these portions, I have to rely upon Javadoc
> API documentation. Many methods have documentation along the lines:
>
> isLetter():
>
> A character is considered to be a letter if and only if it is
> specified to be a letter by the Unicode 2.0 standard (category
> "Lu", "Ll", "Lt", "Lm", or "Lo" in the Unicode specification data
> file).
>
> The first part (before the parens) makes sense. The last part (in
> parens) does not make sense -- those categories do not encompass the
> Unicode definition of what a letter is.
>
> So I have a problem here. Does Sun mean that isLetter() should return
> true for all letters? Or does Sun mean that isLetter() should return
> true for characters in one of the categories "Lu", "Ll", "Lt", "Lm",
> and "Lo"?
>
> GNU Classpath does the sensible thing and returns true for all
> letters, even though Sun's implementation does not.
>
> (There are many other places in Sun's Javadoc documentation and
> implementation of java.lang.Character which directly conflict with
> what the Unicode 2 standard says to do).
>
> (oh, and I finally bought a copy of the Unicode 2 spec. This is a
> good thing, because otherwise, our java.lang.Character would be just
> as brain dead as Sun's)
>
> --
> Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
