Hi Stuart,
You're a brave man :) I shall refrain from mentioning any of the
existing wording quirks that really irritate me. :)
On 19/08/2017 5:59 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Well nothing is ever simple, is it? Prompted by David Holmes' comments,
I looked at the other overloads of wait(), and I agree that they're in
need of cleanup. I decided to put the most complete version of the
specification into the wait(timeout, nanos) overload, and then I simply
redefined the other overloads wait(timeout) and wait() in terms of the
first. This avoids redundancies that creep in when what ought to be the
same specification is replicated across different overloads (which is
probably how the specs for these methods diverged in the first place).
I've incorporated comments from Martin Buchholz and Hans Boehm. I've
done a little bit of rewriting where I thought it was necessary,
particularly in the lead sentences of the specs. Plus I added a few
editorial cleanups.
Since this has gotten bigger, here's a webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6344935/webrev.1/
Overall looks good. Only nit I have is that for the:
* @throws InterruptedException if any thread interrupted the current
thread before or
* while the current thread was waiting
I prefer to see the:
"The <i>interrupted status</i> of the current thread is cleared when
this exception is thrown."
remain on the @throws. I just think people are more likely to look at
the @throws than read all the main javadoc.
Thanks,
David
Please review. Thanks.
s'marks
