Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-14 Thread Stuart Marks
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: >> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the >> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its >> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the >> **previous**

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-14 Thread Jonathan Gibbons
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: >> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the >> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its >> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the >> **previous**

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-14 Thread Pavel Rappo
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: >> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the >> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its >> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the >> **previous**

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread John Hendrikx
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: >> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the >> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its >> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the >> **previous**

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread Chen Liang
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote: >> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the >> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its >> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the >> **previous**

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread John Hendrikx
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:27:31 GMT, Chen Liang wrote: >> Yeah, I wasn't sure about that, I can make it more specific, I used >> `considered` here because both unmapped keys and keys mapped to `null` are >> considered to be absent. > > I think `absent or {@code null}` is no less concise yet it is

Re: RFR: JDK-8323760 putIfAbsent documentation conflicts with itself [v2]

2024-02-13 Thread John Hendrikx
> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the main > description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its `@return` > tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the **previous** > value, as the whole point of the method is not the replace t