JDK 9 RFR(s): 8173152: Wrong wording in Comparator.compare() method spec

Brian Burkhalter brian.burkhalter at oracle.com
Fri Apr 7 18:44:20 UTC 2017


Hi Stuart,

On Apr 6, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:

> -     * imposes orderings that are inconsistent with equals."
> +     * imposes orderings that are inconsistent with equals."<p>

Picayune question: Would the <p> be better on the line before “In the foregoing?"

> +     *
> +     * In the foregoing description, the notation
> +     * {@code sgn(}<i>expression</i>{@code )} designates the mathematical
> +     * <i>signum</i> function, which is defined to return one of {@code -1},
> +     * {@code 0}, or {@code 1} according to whether the value of
> +     * <i>expression</i> is negative, zero or positive.

I suggest to put “, respectively” at the end of the sentence.

Brian


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list