On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 17:54, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Looks good to me, but what about integrating **/highSurrogate2?
I plan to do that just before I commit.
> I think you have done a little bit too much in the 2nd paragraphs. I rarely
> have seen such detailedness on current javadocs.
The source is
Looks good to me, but what about integrating **/highSurrogate2?
Am 02.04.2010 22:01, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
Hi Masayoshi,
Writing good spec is hard and annoying, but important.
I think you have done a little bit too much in the 2nd paragraphs. I
rarely have seen such detailedness on cu
Hi Martin,
Here are my comments on the 6933322 changes.
- I'd suggest that the Unicode terms be used instead of "the first part"
and "the second part", something like "the high surrogate (also known as
leading surrogate) code unit of the surrogate pair." If you want to
emphasize the order, "t
Hi Masayoshi,
Writing good spec is hard and annoying, but important.
I've improved the spec in various ways, mostly as you suggested.
Please see the updated webrev
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/highSurrogate/
Martin
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 01:42, Masayoshi Okutsu wrote:
>
Updated topic.
-Ulf
Am 25.03.2010 21:42, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
Am 24.03.2010 09:24, schrieb Martin Buchholz:
Ulf, Sherman, Masayoshi,
here are changes for you to review.
Only the patch highSurrogate needs a separate bug filed
(and CCC, please)
I had just filed it 2 weeks ago, see:
http://bugs.
