+1 Paul.
> On 17 Jan 2018, at 12:29, mandy chung <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 1/17/18 12:16 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> >>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 08:50, mandy chung <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Webrev: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk11/webrevs/8194554/webrev.00/ >>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk11/webrevs/8194554/webrev.00/> >>> >>> This fixes a mismatch between the specification and implementation. >>> If MethodHandles.filterArguments is used to apply two or more non-null >>> filters to a method handle, those filters will be run in right-to-left >>> order in the current implementation whereas the javadoc indicates that >>> these filters are run in normal argument order, left-to-right. >>> >> Fix looks good, but perhaps the test logic could be made a little simpler? >> >> Since the filter methods update shared state what if they just add their >> identifier to a list so you can observe [“A”, “B”, C”], or [“B”, “C”] etc. >> >> Then you can test against the the list for the required order of filter >> calls rather putting logic in the filter methods themselves in what they >> return (they can just be identity functions with a side-effect). >> > > That's a good idea (I should have started with a simpler test). > > Updated: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk11/webrevs/8194554/webrev.01/ > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mchung/jdk11/webrevs/8194554/webrev.01/> > > Thanks > Mandy
