On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:08:05 GMT, Kevin Walls <kev...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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 saw the changes in exception messages, > searched for the wrong text in the test directories, and didn't find any > matches that looked like checks. Invocable, Invokable and Invokeable are all used in practice. We have a mix of invocable and invokable throughout our codebase, with more of the former than the latter - and in prose "invocable" is probably best. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8334
