Am 02.09.2009 05:21, Martin Buchholz schrieb:
- I would like to see backwards-referring like:
public static final int MIN_CODE_POINT = MIN_VALUE;
public static final int MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_VALUE
+ 1;
Those would work, but would add to the confusion
between code points and UTF-16 code units.
Notice how "MAX_VALUE + 1" looks like an oxymoron.
;-)
But I don't have any problem as I don't have using Byte.MAX_VALUE + 1.
The real source of the confusion is elsewhere, i.e. imagine we would
have class Integer managing 16 + 32 bit values.
Maybe it would become more clear adding MAX_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT for
*consistency* and having following order:
(Note that I added " of type {...@code int}", similar to description of
MIN_VALUE.)
/**
* The minimum value of a
* <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#code_point";>
* Unicode code point</a>, constant {...@code U+0000}
* of type {...@code int}.
*
* @since 1.5
*/
public static final int MIN_CODE_POINT = MIN_VALUE;
/**
* The minimum value of a
* <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#supplementary_code_point";>
* Unicode supplementary code point</a>, constant {...@code U+10000}
* of type {...@code int}.
*
* @since 1.5
*/
public static final int MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_VALUE + 1;
/**
* The maximum value of a
* <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#code_point";>
* Unicode code point</a>, constant {...@code U+10FFFF}
* of type {...@code int}.
*
* @since 1.5
*/
public static final int MAX_CODE_POINT = 0X10FFFF;
/**
* The maximum value of a
* <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#supplementary_code_point";>
* Unicode supplementary code point</a>, constant {...@code U+10FFFF}
* of type {...@code int}.
*
* @since 1.7
*/
public static final int MAX_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_CODE_POINT;
Having following would be useful too:
public static final byte MIN_ASCII = MIN_VALUE;
public static final byte MAX_ASCII = Byte.MAX_VALUE;
-Ulf
