RFR: 8292981: Unify and restructure integer printing format specifiers [v4]

[Kim Barrett]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 17:22:55 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <stefank at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I see that now. I wandered into the diffs to quickly see what this is about and saw this without the comment and it looked strange.  Maybe _0X would also look strange, or even _0_X.  I assume these alternatives have been discussed and discarded.
>
> They have not been discussed. I looked for a pragmatic solution to the problem that parts of the code have different formatting requirements, and then selected one naming convention that I liked. This can still be changed if we can agree on a another / better naming convention.

I don't have a strong opinion, just offering a couple ideas.  I'm not sure the additional underscore between the modifiers is worthwhile.  I like having the "X" before the extension part.  I thought about "Z" (for zero) instead of "0", but think I prefer being more literal.  So my preference would be "XXX_FORMAT_X0" instead of "XXX_FORMAT_X_0".  But that's a pretty weak preference.

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/10042