On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 08:31:13 GMT, Kim Barrett <kbarr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I fixed this. This seems ok. I didn't know about this format option tbh >> but if it's standard, why not? > > I'd forgotten about that format option too, which is why I'm not enamored of > it. Also, written that way the > prefix gets included in the width when dealing with field width, which might > not be great either. The problem of accounting for the prefix in the field width calculation can be dealt with by using precision rather than field width. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22916#discussion_r1905104428
