hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6860431: Character.isSurrogate(char ch)

[Ulf Zibis]

Am 02.09.2009 05:21, Martin Buchholz schrieb:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 01:29, Ulf Zibis <Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de 
> <mailto:Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>
> {@code is now the preferred way.  I tried to modify the methods I changed,
> but didn't try to change the whole file.

You also have added old style, so I asked why you have mixed it:

/**
- * The minimum value of a Unicode surrogate code unit in the UTF-16 
encoding.
+ * The minimum value of a Unicode surrogate code unit in the
+ * UTF-16 encoding, constant <code>'\uD800'</code>.
*
* @since 1.5
*/
public static final char MIN_SURROGATE = MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE;


> A brave person such as yourself could try to
> become "code janitor" for the whole jdk.

In this case it should be simple to replace <code>...</code> against 
{@code ...} on the whole JDK. My problem is, that I don't have the 
CPU-power to build the JDK, and check the whole javadoc if it would have 
broken.

>
>
>     - you have mixed U+1234 and \u1234 style. Why?
>
>
> They are different things.  U+1234 describes a Unicode character or 
> codepoint,
> while '\u1234' is a char (code unit, not code point).
>  See Unicode glossary.

Yes, after a closer look I can see the point, so I corrected their usage 
where I thought, it was wrong.
But what's about using {@code U+10000}, found for 
MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT javadoc ?
"U+10000" is not valid java code, but I must admit, that it looks better 
than "0x010000"
Maybe we must use <tt>U+10000</tt> here.

>
>
>     - often you use '\' for '\', but not ever (e.g. '\t'). I think
>     we can use always '\'. There should not be so much developers in
>     the world who can't decode ISO-8859-1 or UTF-xx.
>
>
> We try hard to keep source code ASCII.  Sorry, the world is adopting 
> UTF-8,
> but the transition is rather slow.  Maybe in 10 years we can go UTF-8 
> everywhere.

I have been fallen into a trap: '\' *is* ASCII, it's '\u005C'. so is 
there any reason remaining on '\' ???

>
>  
>
>
>     - I would like to see backwards-referring like:
>       public static final int MIN_CODE_POINT = MIN_VALUE;
>       public static final int MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_VALUE
>     + 1;
>
>
> Those would work, but would add to the confusion
> between code points and UTF-16 code units.
> Notice how "MAX_VALUE + 1" looks like an oxymoron.
>
;-)
But I don't have any problem as I don't have using Byte.MAX_VALUE + 1.
The real source of the confusion is elsewhere, i.e. imagine we would 
have class Integer managing 16 + 32 bit values.

Maybe it would become more clear adding MAX_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT for 
*consistency* and having following order:
(Note that I added " of type {@code int}", similar to description of 
MIN_VALUE.)

    /**
     * The minimum value of a
     * <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#code_point">
     * Unicode code point</a>, constant {@code U+0000}
     * of type {@code int}.
     *
     * @since 1.5
     */
    public static final int MIN_CODE_POINT = MIN_VALUE;

    /**
     * The minimum value of a
     * <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#supplementary_code_point">
     * Unicode supplementary code point</a>, constant {@code U+10000}
     * of type {@code int}.
     *
     * @since 1.5
     */
    public static final int MIN_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_VALUE + 1;

    /**
     * The maximum value of a
     * <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#code_point">
     * Unicode code point</a>, constant {@code U+10FFFF}
     * of type {@code int}.
     *
     * @since 1.5
     */
    public static final int MAX_CODE_POINT = 0X10FFFF;

    /**
     * The maximum value of a
     * <a href="http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#supplementary_code_point">
     * Unicode supplementary code point</a>, constant {@code U+10FFFF}
     * of type {@code int}.
     *
     * @since 1.7
     */
    public static final int MAX_SUPPLEMENTARY_CODE_POINT = MAX_CODE_POINT;


-Ulf


> Martin
>  
>
>
>
>     -Ulf
>
>
>     Am 01.09.2009 00:11, martinrb at google.com
>     <mailto:martinrb at google.com> schrieb:
>
>         Changeset: db5d6b4cbc11
>         Author:    martin
>         Date:      2009-08-31 15:00 -0700
>         URL:       http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/db5d6b4cbc11
>
>         6860431: Character.isSurrogate(char ch)
>         Summary: Add new method Character.isSurrogate(char ch)
>         Reviewed-by: sherman, darcy, okutsu
>
>          
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/attachments/20090902/432dc62b/attachment.html>