<i18n dev> Intent to commit modifications to Character.java

[Masayoshi Okutsu]

On 8/11/2009 6:10 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I should really be doing something else, but
> I reworked my "surrogate readability patch"
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/isSurrogate2/
> to take into account Joe's suggestions.
>
> Masayoshi, hope that's OK with you.
> The new javadoc makes the values of various jsr 204 constants
> more obvious than before.
>   

Yes. The new one looks better to me. Thank you for the improvement. :-)

Masayoshi
> I intend to fold the two isSurrogate patches into one and commit them
> when I get CCC approval.  Speaking of which... has that happened yet?
>
> Martin
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:37, Joseph D. Darcy<Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Masayoshi,
>>>
>>> Hmmm,
>>> I was thinking "but all you have to do to get the actual value
>>> is follow the @link to the constant (e.g. MAX_SURROGATE)"
>>> but I tried that but... for example...
>>>
>>> http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#MAX_SURROGATE
>>> does not document the hex value.
>>>
>>> I think *that's* where we should move the description of the hex value.
>>> I propose to modify my patch in that way.
>>>
>>> (The hex values are also documented in the Character class comment)
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes, I agree it is perfectly reasonable and informative for the MAX_FOO
>> documentation to say "MAX_FOO is 0xabcd".  That is the right place for such
>> detailed information.
>> In contrast, I don't find the isFoo method's documentation saying
>>   "Returns true if c >= 0x1234 && c <= 0xabcd"
>> when the actual code uses the more readable
>>   "return c >= MIN_FOO && c <= MAX_FOO"
>> to be kind to readers of the javadoc!
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>>     
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 22:34, Masayoshi Okutsu<Masayoshi.Okutsu at sun.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I vaguely remember that we (jsr204) followed the convention of the
>>>> Character
>>>> class to mention Unicode values in the API doc. It's also convenient to
>>>> have
>>>> Unicode values because you don't need to look up the Unicode standards. I
>>>> don't see much value to rewrite the existing descriptions.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Masayoshi
>>>>
>>>> On 8/5/2009 11:03 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi i18n team,
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am intending to commit these changes to java.lang.Character
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/isSurrogate/
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/isSurrogate2/
>>>>> (follow-on change)
>>>>>
>>>>> as soon as I have CCC approval.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>