On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 01:27:39 GMT, Naoto Sato <na...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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.
Is `IsoBased` is fine with me. "isISOLike" is too vague.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
