RFR JDK-8200172,String.split non-positive term incorrect use (original) (raw)

Xueming Shen xueming.shen at oracle.com
Wed May 23 00:43:18 UTC 2018

Thanks!

webrev has been updated as suggested.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev/

-Sherman

On 5/22/18, 4:30 PM, joe darcy wrote:

Hello,

I think some larger re-wording is in order. Here is one of the proposed new paragraphs: 2181 *

The {@code limit} parameter controls the number of

times the 2182 * pattern is applied and therefore affects the length of the resulting 2183 * array. If the limit n is greater than zero then the pattern 2184 * will be applied at most n - 1 times, the array's 2185 * length will be no greater than n, and the array's last entry 2186 * will contain all input beyond the last matched delimiter. If n 2187 * is negative then the pattern will be applied as many times as 2188 * possible and the array can have any length. If n is zero then 2189 * the pattern will be applied as many times as possible, the array can 2190 * have any length, and trailing empty strings will be discarded. In a mathematical signed-ness sense there are three values, positive, zero, and negative, hence library methods like Integer.signum which return -1, 0, or 1. The term non-negative covers zero and positive values; conversely non-positive covers zero and negative. In terms of how the above paragraph could be structured, I'd recommend "If the limit n is positive... If the limit n is zero... if the limit n is negative..." possibly using an unordered list. No CSR would be required for this kind of change as the semantics of the specification is not being altered. HTH, -Joe

On 5/22/2018 4:13 PM, Lance Andersen wrote: Hi Sherman

The change from non-positive to negative makes sense. I would agree that a CSR should not be required (hopefully Joe D does also ;-) ) Best Lance On May 22, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Xueming Shen <xueming.shen at oracle.com> wrote:

Hi, Please help review a api doc clarification for String.split()/Pattern.split(). issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200172 webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev As suggested, it appears to be clear, straightforward and less confusion to simply categorize the clauses as "if positive", "if negative" and "if zero". It's simply a rewording to clear things up, I would assume csr is not necessary here. thanks, Sherman <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif> <http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 Lance.Andersen at oracle.com <mailto:Lance.Andersen at oracle.com>

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list