On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:17:20 GMT, Kevin Walls <kev...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I ran `codespell` on modules owned by the serviceability team >> (`java.instrument java.management.rmi java.management jdk.attach >> jdk.hotspot.agent jdk.internal.jvmstat jdk.jcmd jdk.jconsole jdk.jdi >> jdk.jdwp.agent jdk.jstatd jdk.management.agent jdk.management`), and >> accepted those changes where it indeed discovered real typos. >> >> >> I will update copyright years using a script before pushing (otherwise like >> every second change would be a copyright update, making reviewing much >> harder). >> >> The long term goal here is to make tooling support for running `codespell`. >> The trouble with automating this is of course all false positives. But >> before even trying to solve that issue, all true positives must be fixed. >> Hence this PR. > > src/jdk.jdwp.agent/share/native/libjdwp/invoker.h line 38: > >> 36: jboolean pending; /* Is an invoke requested? */ >> 37: jboolean started; /* Is an invoke happening? */ >> 38: jboolean available; /* Is the thread in an invocable state? */ > > invocable could perhaps stay as invokable ? > Elsewhere we have a filename com/sun/tools/jdi/InvokableTypeImpl.java which > we clearly don't want to change, and I see Internet dictionary evidence of > invokable being acceptable. But on the other hand we have `javax.script.Invocable`. :-) Codespell suggested this change, and I based my decision to keep it based on [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invocable) not even listing "invokable" as an alternate spelling, and that "invocable" has about 3x the number of Google hits than "invokable". But sure, there is perhaps reason to consider "invokable" an acceptable alternative and keep it. I guess it depends on if you consider the word to be based on "invoke" with a suffix, or a latinized form, like "invocation". I'll wait a while for others to chime in, otherwise I'll revert the "invokable" changes. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8334
