Looks good to me, but what about integrating **/highSurrogate2?
Am 02.04.2010 22:01, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
Hi Masayoshi,
Writing good spec is hard and annoying, but important.
I think you have done a little bit too much in the 2nd paragraphs. I
rarely have seen such detailedness on current javadocs.
Good exercise, the sophisticated use of {...@link }. :-)
-Ulf
I've improved the spec in various ways, mostly as you suggested.
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/highSurrogate/
Martin
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 01:42, Masayoshi Okutsu<masayoshi.oku...@sun.com> wrote:
Hi Martin,
Here are my comments on the 6933322 changes.
- I'd suggest that the Unicode terms be used instead of "the first part" and
"the second part", something like "the high surrogate (also known as leading
surrogate) code unit of the surrogate pair." If you want to emphasize the
order, "the leading surrogate (high surrogate) code unit" should be OK.
Actually there were some discussions about high/low vs. leading/trailing in
JSR 204, and we decided to use high/low to follow the (main) Unicode terms.
http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#high_surrogate_code_unit
http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#leading_surrogate
- @param, @return and @since are missing. There should be @see for the
counterpart.
Otherwise, the changes look good to me, assuming that CCC would approve the
API change.
Thanks,
Masayoshi
On 3/26/2010 5:52 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
Updated topic.
-Ulf
Am 25.03.2010 21:42, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
Am 24.03.2010 09:24, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
Ulf, Sherman, Masayoshi,
here are changes for you to review.
Only the patch highSurrogate needs a separate bug filed
(and CCC, please)
I had just filed it 2 weeks ago, see:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6933322
-Ulf
