Hello,
I'm fine with version 1 as well.
Cheers,
-Joe
On 1/29/2015 1:07 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Brian,
#1, The current webrev is fine as is. (Perhaps with a 2015 copyright
update).
Since the methods are abstract, the general description is sufficient and
the subclass would have more detail if specified.
Roger
On 1/29/2015 3:53 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Andreas Lundblad
<andreas.lundb...@oracle.com> wrote:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8067669/webrev.01/
Note that the change at line 40 should be made even if the other
diffs are rejected.
This patch is an improvement in my opinion since it does not
indicate that any effort is made to round or truncate the number.
The obvious place to look for further documentation would be in the
implementing class. I am however still in favour of making this
explicit by adding "The specific semantics of the conversion is
defined by the subclass in question." which is also in line with the
class level documentation.
So at this point I think there are three options:
1) webrev.01 above
2) webrev.01 plus the statement
"The specific semantics of the conversion is defined by the
subclass in question.”
added to the doc of each conversion method
3) resolve as “Not an Issue.”
It would be good to decide on one of these and resolve this issue. I
am inclined to either #1 or #3.
Thanks,
Brian
