On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 00:38:28 GMT, Nir Lisker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> (and I realize that I was the one who introduced the grammatical error in >>> my suggestion) >> >> I was confused by that phrasing as well, so I checked, and it turns out >> "access" can be used as a plural. I thought it was intentional. > >> Better. However, I see that `FormatStringConverter`, >> `NumberStringConverter`, and `DateTimeStringConverter` take a user-provided >> format object and store a reference to that object, so calling those >> converters "immutable" is misleading. If the caller mutates the format >> object after passing it to the converter, it will change the behavior of >> future conversion operations. So I would either list those classes as >> exceptions or remove the immutability claim. > > I opted to list these classes and simplify the implementation note. I also > removed "Implementing classes are not required to be immutable." both because > it's somewhat obvious now and because such a requirement would have been > noted in `@implSpec`. I thought about this some more. I moved the specific immutability issues to the affected classes' docs. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1880#discussion_r3717292442
