Hi Raffaello, On Mar 30, 2018, at 2:57 PM, raffaello.giulie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> […] >>> >>> The new code also has a better specification than the current one, while >>> being mostly compatible. Indeed, the current specification leaves room >>> for interpretation and thus cannot ensure that an implementation >>> produces consistent and unique results from one release to the next. The >>> newer spec ensures a unique result. >> >> Any specification change would need to go through the Compatibility and >> Specification Review process. [3] >> > > OK, as you will see, as soon as the code will be uploaded, the only > thing that formally affects output is the "1.0E23" versus "9.99....E22" > issue. Everything else is worded in such a way to remain compatible but > is simply a little bit more rigorous. Sounds good. > My wording was misleading: I already got the confirmation that my OCA > application has been accepted, so I'm formally ready to contribute. That’s good as it gives more time. >> Per the JDK 11 schedule [5] there could well be sufficient time to run >> this submission through the review processes. I suggest, once your OCA >> has been processed, to proceed by posting your proposed changes for >> review on this mailing list. Note that in general attachments are >> scrubbed, so the patch would need either to be included inline or >> published as a webrev [6]. >> > > OK, I'll take a look on how the mechanics works. > > I'm usually on Windows. Are there technical issues with it as far as > Webrev is concerned? I mean, I could setup a Linux VM in VirtualBox if > this simplifies my life, but I'd prefer continuing my main work in Win. As seen in Jon’s posting there are some attachment types which will work. As to webrev, I think it should work on Windows at least in cygwin but I’ve not used it there myself. If it’s just a matter of creating a webrev I could do that on your behalf based on your supplied patch. Thanks, Brian
