On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:30:47 GMT, Justin Lu <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/CompactNumberFormat.java line 78:
>> 
>>> 76:  * installed. Thus, to use an instance method defined by {@code 
>>> CompactNumberFormat},
>>> 77:  * the {@code NumberFormat} returned by the factory method should first 
>>> be type
>>> 78:  * checked before cast to {@code CompactNumberFormat}. If the installed 
>>> locale-sensitive
>> 
>> Since `CompactNumberFormat` does not provide its own instance methods (i.e., 
>> instance methods are exactly the same as the parent NumberFormat), "instance 
>> methods defined by CompactNF" does not make much sense, which is different 
>> for `DecimalFormat`.
>
> `CompactNumberFormat` does define its own instance methods such as 
> `setParseBigDecimal`, `setGroupingSize`, etc, so I think that this wording 
> should still be included.

My bad, you're correct. The confusion I had was probably this wording: "These 
factory methods may not always return a CompactNumberFormat". I believe it 
*does* return a CNF (in terms of `instanceof`), because as the factory methods 
names imply. However, in the case of DecimalFormat, the factory methods are 
simply, for example, "NumberFormat.getInstance()" and the implementation may 
return a different class instance, which does not even offer methods on 
DecimalFormat class. The difference needs to be described somehow IMO.

>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/text/NumberFormat.java line 235:
>> 
>>> 233:  * @see          ChoiceFormat
>>> 234:  * @see          CompactNumberFormat
>>> 235:  * @see          Locale
>> 
>> Could be removed as the link is now gone
>
> As this is a localized class, and the class description mentions `Locale` in 
> various places, I feel like `Locale` should still be included as a `see` tag, 
> (even though I removed the locale link). I am fine either way, what do you 
> think?

OK, let's keep them then

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18731#discussion_r1568018900
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18731#discussion_r1568020362

Reply via email to