Thanks Chris. Right, RFC itself contains the statements that can lead to
ambiguity and including examples from different sections of RFC w/o a
proper context doesn't help with understanding what the method should do
and what shouldn't. I'll go ahead and push the fix.
thanks,
dmeetry
On 04/16/2012 05:31 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Dmeetry,
Since this is non-normative text, and already in jdk6, I think we can
safely remove it.
For the record, I really hate these examples here. Sometime in the
future we should try cleaning up this spec, or make it very clear what
they are referring to.
Thanks,
-Chris.
On 16/04/2012 14:10, Dmeetry Degrave wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for a review for a doc fix, which was reviewed and fixed in
jdk6.
It's a straight forward port, the method's doc contains an ambiguous
example and fix removes it. The whole issue is well described in cr,
cr: http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=7015981
fix: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dmeetry/7015981/webrev.00/
thanks,
dmeetry
