One can understand the desire to keep the spec wording between Thread.interrupted and Thread.isInterrupted consistent, but we can probably improve by @linkplain-ifying "alive" and adding the word "yet".
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 18/02/2018 10:17, Tagir Valeev wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> A Thread.interrupted() static method (not to be confused with >> Thread.isInterrupted() instance method) spec states: >> >> * <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/67cdc215ed70/src/ja >> va.base/share/classes/java/lang/Thread.java#l1030> >> * <p>A thread interruption ignored because a thread was not alive >> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/67cdc215ed70/src/ja >> va.base/share/classes/java/lang/Thread.java#l1031> >> * at the time of the interrupt will be reflected by this method >> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/file/67cdc215ed70/src/ja >> va.base/share/classes/java/lang/Thread.java#l1032> >> * returning false. >> >> >> The Thread.interrupted() always applies to the current thread. I don't >> understand how it's possible that a current thread is not alive. To me >> this >> note is redundant and should be removed. Am I missing something? >> >> I think the wording could be improved but this about invoking > Thread.interrupt before the thread is started. JDK-4082705 [1] has more on > this. > > -Alan > > [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4082705 >
