On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:46:11 GMT, Pavel Rappo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Please review this documentation-only change, which I believe does **NOT** >> require CSR. >> >> The change touches java.time.** classes that I happen to have been using a >> lot recently. While the diff is pretty self-describing, here's the summary >> of what I did: >> >> * used a comma separator for some big integer values, to improve readability; >> * fixed a few typos and grammar. >> >> While I'm open to discuss the change, I also have some questions. Note: I'm >> not attempting to address those questions in this PR. >> >> * What's the significance of the second argument in >> Duration.between(Temporal, Temporal) being exclusive? For example, would the >> result of the following call be different if the second argument was >> inclusive? >> >> Duration.between(Instant.ofEpochSecond(1), Instant.ofEpochSecond(2)) >> >> Are there any cases here where that distinction matters? >> >> * In many cases, the following phrase is used throughout documentation: >> >> > positive or negative >> >> While the intent is clearly to stress the directed nature of values, >> shouldn't we -- for completeness -- also mention zero where applicable? >> >> * What's the significance of title-case for Java Time-Scale? FWIW, the >> documentation also uses "Java time-scale". > > Pavel Rappo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Update src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/ChronoField.java > > Co-authored-by: Justin Lu <[email protected]> Looks good. > I might be missing something, but what does IEEE 754 have to do with this? I was simply mentioning there are cases where zeros are signed. Agree that adding zero here is clearer. ------------- Marked as reviewed by naoto (Reviewer). PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27296#pullrequestreview-3230898454
