Hi Chris,
The fix looks good.
(I don't think the messages in the test are all that clear as to whether
the test passed or failed.
But you only repeated what was there before; I think it should clearer
that the stack trace is not an indication of failure).
Roger
On 7/30/2014 11:45 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
A trivial one-liner for a missing null check for the given operator
after the changes for 8047795, which now always passes a non-null
operator to the underlying list.replaceAll.
The original test has been updated in it's existing style to cover this.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8053938/webrev.00/webrev/
-Chris.
