RFR: 8212895: ChronoField.INSTANT_SECONDS's range doesn't match the range of Instant [v2]

[Naoto Sato]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 01:31:36 GMT, Jaikiran Pai <jpai at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/temporal/ChronoField.java line 590:
>> 
>>> 588:      * This is necessary to ensure interoperation between calendars.
>>> 589:      * <p>
>>> 590:      * Range of {@code InstantSeconds} is between {@link Instant#MIN} and {@link Instant#MAX}
>> 
>> Nit: `InstantSeconds` -> `INSTANT_SECONDS`
>
> Hello Naoto, I had used `InstantSeconds` to keep it consistent with how a similar doc is used for the `EPOCH_DAY` field. Let me know if you still prefer this to be `INSTANT_SECONDS` and I will update it.

With the @code tag, I initially thought it can be used programmatically, but apparently, it was simply an Enum name. Users may not notice it till they see the source (or run its `toString()`). I am fine with either way, but probably keep consistent with `EPOCH_DAY` where it is not using @code tag.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18674#discussion_r1559346584