: Roger Riggs
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2018 6:35 PM
To: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: RFR: 8164781: Pattern.asPredicate specification is incomplete
Hi Vivek,
Can we do something to make the first sentence less confusing?
How about:
* Creates a predicate that tests a given input
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 3:34 AM, Vivek Theeyarath
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have incorporated the changes as per the feedback and here is the
>>> updated webrev .
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8164781/webrev.02/ .
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164781
>>>
Hi Vivek,
Can we do something to make the first sentence less confusing?
How about:
* Creates a predicate that tests a given input string for a subsequence
that matches this pattern.
-or-
* Creates a predicate that tests if this pattern is found in a given
input string. Thanks, Roger
On 4
>>
>> Hi,
>> I have incorporated the changes as per the feedback and here is the
>> updated webrev .
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8164781/webrev.02/ .
>>Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164781
>>
>+1
Thanks Paul
>I know it’s picky, but would you mind sticking c
M
> To: Vivek Theeyarath
> Cc: Paul Sandoz ; Core-Libs-Dev
>
> Subject: Re: RFR: 8164781: Pattern.asPredicate specification is incomplete
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Thanks for taking on this task.
>
> In case it wasn't clear from Paul's mail, what I think you
to address Uwe's point with a fix separately.
Regards
Vivek
-Original Message-
From: Stuart Marks
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 6:13 AM
To: Vivek Theeyarath
Cc: Paul Sandoz ; Core-Libs-Dev
Subject: Re: RFR: 8164781: Pattern.asPredicate specification is incomplete
Hi Vivek,
T
On 4/3/18 5:43 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Adding a method to create a Predicate that has match() semantics would be a fine
task to consider separately.
I notice I had already filed a bug for this:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8184692
Feel free to pick it up.
s'marks
Hi Vivek,
Thanks for taking on this task.
In case it wasn't clear from Paul's mail, what I think you should do is continue
with this fix as a doc-only (and test-only) change, and not modify the behavior
of this method. Doing that would be an incompatible change.
Uwe's point is a reasonable o
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
> In general, I'd prefer to have a predicate that uses matches() instead of
> find(). In my code I have never used find() because in most cases you want
> to match the whole string anyways. Of course you can use ^ and $ but I
> don't like tha
Hi,
Looks good, expect for:
5823 * @return The predicate which can be used for finding on a string
“finding on a… ” is a little awkward to parse . I recommend to either change it
back, since the first sentence of the method doc says what it means by matches,
or being a little more verbos
Hi,
In general, I'd prefer to have a predicate that uses matches() instead of
find(). In my code I have never used find() because in most cases you want to
match the whole string anyways. Of course you can use ^ and $ but I don't like
that leniency. If I write code, I prefer to be explicit in t
Hi all,
Please review.
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164781
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rraghavan/8164781/webrev.01/
Regards
Vivek
12 matches
Mail list logo