Thanks!
webrev has been updated as suggested.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev/
-Sherman
On 5/22/18, 4:30 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
I think some larger re-wording is in order. Here is one of the
proposed new paragraphs:
2181 * <p> The {@code limit} parameter controls the number of
times the
2182 * pattern is applied and therefore affects the length of the
resulting
2183 * array. If the limit <i>n</i> is greater than zero then
the pattern
2184 * will be applied at most <i>n</i> - 1 times, the
array's
2185 * length will be no greater than <i>n</i>, and the array's
last entry
2186 * will contain all input beyond the last matched delimiter.
If <i>n</i>
2187 * is negative then the pattern will be applied as many times as
2188 * possible and the array can have any length. If <i>n</i>
is zero then
2189 * the pattern will be applied as many times as possible, the
array can
2190 * have any length, and trailing empty strings will be
discarded.
In a mathematical signed-ness sense there are three values, positive,
zero, and negative, hence library methods like Integer.signum which
return -1, 0, or 1. The term non-negative covers zero and positive
values; conversely non-positive covers zero and negative.
In terms of how the above paragraph could be structured, I'd recommend
"If the limit n is positive...
If the limit n is zero...
if the limit n is negative..."
possibly using an unordered list.
No CSR would be required for this kind of change as the semantics of
the specification is not being altered.
HTH,
-Joe
On 5/22/2018 4:13 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Sherman
The change from non-positive to negative makes sense.
I would agree that a CSR should not be required (hopefully Joe D does
also ;-) )
Best
Lance
On May 22, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Xueming Shen <xueming.s...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Hi,
Please help review a api doc clarification for
String.split()/Pattern.split().
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200172
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev
As suggested, it appears to be clear, straightforward and less
confusion to simply
categorize the clauses as "if positive", "if negative" and "if zero".
It's simply a rewording to clear things up, I would assume csr is
not necessary here.
thanks,
Sherman
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance
Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com>
