RFR (XS): 8004661: Comment and function name java_lang_String::toHash is wrong

[Bengt Rutisson]

Looks good, Erik!

Bengt

On 12/12/12 5:01 PM, Erik Helin wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 04:10 PM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
>> On 12/12/2012 8:42 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
>>> Bengt,
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2012 01:15 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't the method be called hash_code() rather than hashCode() ?
>>>
>>> This is the standard we use throughout the codebase for the C++ code,
>>> but I believe that the Coleen wanted the name of the method to match
>>> the Java one.
>>>
>>> Coleen, did I understand this correctly?
>>>
>>> I'm fine with using any one of hashCode or hash_code, I think both
>>> suggestions make sense.
>>
>> Yes, I think it should be hash_code to follow our coding conventions but
>> the comments should say hashCode (to match the jdk name). Otherwise,
>> looks great.
>
> Thanks, I've the updated webrev to use hash_code instead of hashCode 
> for the C++ function names, please see:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8004661/webrev.01/
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
>
>> Thanks!
>> Coleen
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2012 01:15 PM, Bengt Rutisson wrote:
>>>> Other than that it looks good to me.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>>> Bengt
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/12 10:27 AM, Erik Helin wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> the webrev is located at:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ehelin/8004661/webrev.00/
>>>>>
>>>>> Bug:
>>>>> http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=8004661
>>>>>
>>>>> Summary:
>>>>> I've renamed the function to_hash to hashCode and also updated the
>>>>> comments to use hashCode instead of to_hash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Testing:
>>>>> JPRT
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Erik
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>