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

[Brian Burkhalter]

On Apr 7, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com> wrote:

> On 4/7/17 11:44 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
>> 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?"
> The rest of the markup in this method spec has trailing <p> tags, so I just kept things consistent with that. This is an odd style but it's not incorrect, as every paragraph except for the first has a <p> preceding it.

That’s reasonable.

>>> +     *
>>> +     * 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.
> Sure, I can do that. I'll also add an Oxford comma as well.

Good, I prefer that also.

> I'll make the same modifications to the Comparable interface, too.

Sounds good. Reviewed.

Brian