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 written
rather than what is intended.
Conversely if the code does as intended rather than as documented then
either there is no test or whomever wrote the test didn't report the
error in the documentation. :(
In this case I see the code throws the intended exception, so that adds
weight to the case that this was a simple typo. But once this has
shipped (and JDK 8 is untying from the dock) the distinction may be moot
- we have a spec and code that disagree so one must be changed.
David
Stephen
On 19 February 2014 11:08, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> 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
UnsupportedTemporalTypeException}.
David
On 19/02/2014 8:54 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
A set of minor wording fixes in Javadoc:
https://gist.github.com/jodastephen/8984256
Comments welcome.
Stephen
