On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:22:04 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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. Sure, I just thought there was enough evidence that invokable is not definitely wrong, even if invocable is more correct and popular, so it's not obvious it should be changed. Don't lose sleep over it. 8-) More importantly, on the tests -- I see the changes in exception messages searched for the wrong text in the test directories, and didn't find any matches that looked like checks. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8334
