On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:43:36 GMT, Joe Wang <jo...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Both conditions of the statement are intended to be met. If the stream is at
>> its end then
>>
>> if (pos >= count) {
>> return -1;
>> }
>>
>> will cause `-1` to be returned because at end of stream the condition `pos
>> >= count` is met.
>>
>> The overridden method always returns `0` if `len == 0`.:
>>
>>
>> public int read(byte b[], int off, int len) throws IOException {
>> Objects.checkFromIndexSize(off, len, b.length);
>> if (len == 0) {
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Right. I understand. The intention was, unlike the overridden method that
> returns 0 if len == 0 and -1 if at the end of the stream, this method returns
> -1 in both cases. A careful reader, after comparing both methods, would
> understand correctly that the difference is in the case of "len==0". I'm fine
> if you think this is good enough. Just a thought though that the statement
> could be interpreted as if both conditions need to be met at the same time
> (if "and" is taken as "&&", e.g. if (pos>==count && len==0) ).
>
> Something like the following might be clearer?
> * Unlike the {@link InputStream#read(byte[],int,int) overridden method}
> * of {@code InputStream} that returns {@code -1} if the end of the stream
> * has been reached and {@code 0} if {@code len == 0}, this method returns
> * {@code -1} in both cases.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for the suggestion. I am happy with it as is, but I'll hold off
integrating it for now and rethink it later.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/189
