> On 22 Jan 2016, at 01:39, Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Steve Drach <steve.dr...@oracle.com> 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. >
While there is a some naming activity over what to call such constants, i think the use a ‘_’ as the first character of a public API artefact should be strongly discouraged, such usages are more commonly associated with internal artefacts or generated code and using such a style for public artefacts sets a “bad" precedence IMO (first use in the Java APIs AFAICT). There needs to be a really strong justification for such public use and at the moment i don’t see one here. Paul.
