On Apr 7, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/17 11:44 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> - * imposes orderings that are inconsistent with equals."
>>> + * imposes orderings that are inconsistent with equals."<p>
>>
>> Picayune question: Would the <p> be better on the line before “In the
>> foregoing?"
> The rest of the markup in this method spec has trailing <p> tags, so I just
> kept things consistent with that. This is an odd style but it's not
> incorrect, as every paragraph except for the first has a <p> preceding it.
That’s reasonable.
>>> + *
>>> + * In the foregoing description, the notation
>>> + * {@code sgn(}<i>expression</i>{@code )} designates the mathematical
>>> + * <i>signum</i> function, which is defined to return one of {@code
>>> -1},
>>> + * {@code 0}, or {@code 1} according to whether the value of
>>> + * <i>expression</i> is negative, zero or positive.
>>
>> I suggest to put “, respectively” at the end of the sentence.
> Sure, I can do that. I'll also add an Oxford comma as well.
Good, I prefer that also.
> I'll make the same modifications to the Comparable interface, too.
Sounds good. Reviewed.
Brian
