On Fri, 23 May 2025 12:28:36 GMT, Tagir F. Valeev <tval...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Implementation of Comparator.min and Comparator.max methods. Preliminary >> discussion is in this thread: >> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2025-May/145638.html >> The specification is mostly composed of Math.min/max and Collections.min/max >> specifications. >> >> The methods are quite trivial, so I don't think we need more extensive >> testing (e.g., using different comparators). But if you have ideas of new >> useful tests, I'll gladly add them. >> >> I'm not sure whether we should specify exactly the behavior in case if the >> comparator returns 0. I feel that it could be a useful invariant that >> `Comparator.min(a, b)` and `Comparator.max(a, b)` always return different >> argument, partitioning the set of {a, b} objects (even if they are equal). >> But I'm open to suggestions here. > > Tagir F. Valeev has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > Make min and max generic src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Comparator.java line 206: > 204: * @since 25 > 205: */ > 206: default <U extends T> U max(U a, U b) { The parameter names are o1 and o2 in the `compare` method min and max build on. Though a and b are used in the class javadoc example and x and y are used in the spec description. Can we be consistent in the API? (o1, o2) perhaps. Someday, the parameter names *may* be more significant. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25297#discussion_r2105250452
