On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:00:38 GMT, Roger Riggs <rri...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Since the instances are immutable, it seemed useful to emphasize that only > the instance returned has the requested > change. Discarding the return value was incorrect programming. The original > instance is not modified. Understood, and agree. > The "copy" phrasing was used throughout java.time. Ok, but that does not mean that it is appropriate or correct. > Since reference equality is specifically dis-allowed for value-based objects, > there is no way to discover a difference > between a copy and the original with the same parameters. A _copy_ implies that something identical or similar is _created_ or _made_, but that does not *always* have to be the case here, but the spec *requires* it. Why not just; "Returns a formatter similar to this formatter with the given delimiter". OR something along those lines. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/482
