Reasonable comment but unfortunately missed my push by mere seconds. I've made
a note to correct the docs but will likely wait for some other issue to
incorporate it.
Mike
On Jul 22 2013, at 14:00 , Paul Benedict wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I know the description is pulled from the previous constructor, but both
> sound a bit awkward. Both can probably benefit from an improvement.
>
> Currently:
> "Creates a {@code PriorityQueue} with the default initial capacity that
> orders its elements according to the specified comparator."
>
> Depending on one's spoken emphasis, it can sound as if the capacity is the
> one causing the elements to be ordered.
>
> Suggestion:
> "Creates a {@code PriorityQueue} with the default initial capacity and
> whose elements are ordered according to the specified comparator."
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
