On Sun, 6 Mar 2022 17:12:31 GMT, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@openjdk.org>
wrote:
>> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Addresses review comments
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/chrono/Chronology.java line 794:
>
>> 792: * @since 19
>> 793: */
>> 794: default boolean supportsIsoFields() {
>
> I'm not a fan of this name, as it is inconsistent with the rest of JSR310
> API, which uses an `is` prefix for booleans. I suggested `isIsoLike` because
> the key question is whether the chronology is "like" ISO. I would also be OK
> with `isBasedOnIso`, `isDerivedFromIso`, `isIsoBased` or something similar.
> Another risk here is limiting the method to refer only to `IsoFields`. While
> that is the use case here, it isn't the case that the only fields that might
> be affected are in `IsoFields`. Third parties may have their own fields that
> are suitable for use with an ISO-like chronology.
OK, I propose `isIsoBased()` for the name, which I initially thought of. If
there is no objection, I will modify the spec/impl.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
