On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:31:13 GMT, Justin Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please review this PR which adjusts the specification of > `DateFormat.Field::getCalendarField` to conform to the implementation. > > `getCalendarField()` claims that it will return -1 if there is no > corresponding `Calendar` constant. > > Although the built-in DateFormat.Fields with no associated `Calendar` > constant are created with a `calendarField` equal to -1, a subclass can > create a DateFormat.Field with no associated `Calendar` constant with > `calendarField` equal to anything. > > The specification of `getCalendarField()` should be adjusted to reflect this. > That is, a separate implementation may or may not return -1 if there is no > associated `Calendar` constant. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 4dfa3799 Author: Justin Lu <[email protected]> URL: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/commit/4dfa3799a60cb11092b699db5bc0cc1f44d24484 Stats: 6 lines in 1 file changed: 3 ins; 0 del; 3 mod 7061097: [Doc] Inconsistenency between the spec and the implementation for DateFormat.Field Reviewed-by: naoto ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16279
