> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Steve Drach <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I suspected this is a bike shed candidate. I think Release._9 is nicer and >>> it conveys the same information in a less cluttered way than >>> Release.RELEASE_9. >> Yes a bike shed, I'm just saying that Release._9 looks odd/inconsistent when >> we have SourceVersion.RELEASE_9 elsewhere. Maybe there has been discussion >> on this topic already. With a static import then RELEASE_9 isn't too bad. > > I’ll leave this as an open issue for awhile in case I get another reviewer > that feels as strongly about it you do, or as I do. >
I only started looking at some files on the webrev. Release._9 catches my attention too and it looks very odd. I think RELEASE_9 is a much better constant name than _9. Mandy
