<i18n dev> RFR: 8251499: no-placeholder compact number patterns throw IllegalArgumentException

naoto.sato at oracle.com naoto.sato at oracle.com
Mon Aug 17 23:42:52 UTC 2020

Hi Joe,

It turned out that the previous fix did not address plural format cases. 
That means that just making the divisor negative to indicate 
non-placeholder cannot distinguish multiple plural cases with the same 
divisor. Instead, I created a list of placeholders (minimum digits) for 
each index and count. Here is the updated webrev:


I added a new test case (COMPACT_PATTERN14), which actually is extracted 
from CLDR 38 Somali locale that demonstrates the issue. I'd appreciate 
your further review.


On 8/14/20 6:21 PM, Joe Wang wrote:
> Hi Naoto,
> Looks good to me.
> While a negative divisor representing no zeros is newly introduced, the 
> "divisor > 0" checks seem to have always been beneficial.  I had to 
> count the number of ""s in COMPACT_PATTERN13 :-)
> Have a great weekend!
> Joe
> On 8/14/2020 3:20 PM, naoto.sato at oracle.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Please review the fix for the following issue:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8251499
>> The proposed changeset is located at:
>> https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8251499/webrev.00/
>> The current implementation of CompactNumberFormat assumes that there 
>> is always the number placeholder part in compact patterns. This is not 
>> always true. In fact, upcoming CLDR 38 resurrects such patterns, so 
>> this fix is a precursor to support CLDR 38.
>> Naoto

More information about the i18n-dev mailing list