On 21/11/2013 04:04, Stuart Marks wrote:
OK, I'll remove the String.subSequence change from this changeset and
push it when I get approval.
I've filed this bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8028757
to cover the CharSequence.subSequence issue and potential spec change.
It probab
On 11/15/13 8:36 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 14/11/2013 23:56, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 11/14/13 2:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the subSequence
change - you can't weaken the post-condition of CharSequence.subSequence without
breaking sub
On 14/11/2013 23:56, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 11/14/13 2:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the
subSequence
change - you can't weaken the post-condition of
CharSequence.subSequence without
breaking subtype substitutability.
Hi David,
Yes
Hi Stuart,
On 15/11/2013 9:56 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
On 11/14/13 2:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the
subSequence
change - you can't weaken the post-condition of
CharSequence.subSequence without
breaking subtype substitutability.
Hi
On 11/14/13 2:04 AM, David Holmes wrote:
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the subSequence
change - you can't weaken the post-condition of CharSequence.subSequence without
breaking subtype substitutability.
Hi David,
Yes, in general, what you say about weakening p
Hi Stuart,
Sorry for the delay (been enroute). Only issue I have remains the
subSequence change - you can't weaken the post-condition of
CharSequence.subSequence without breaking subtype substitutability.
Thanks,
David
On 12/11/2013 8:43 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
Hi all,
Here's an updated ve
The wording changes seem fine to me.
Thanks for the specdiff as it made it much easier to review
On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here's an updated version of the String spec change. Changes from the
> previous version address comments made by Brent Christian an
Hi all,
Here's an updated version of the String spec change. Changes from the previous
version address comments made by Brent Christian and David Holmes. Specifically:
- Specify copyValueOf() overloads as "equivalent to" corresponding valueOf()
overloads.
- Remove extranous changes to subS