+1
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 22, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> webrev has been updated as suggested.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev/
>
> -Sherman
>
>> On 5/22/18, 4:30 PM, joe darcy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think some larger re-wording is
+1
Thinking still needs CSR to track the change.
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 22, 2018, at 8:07 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help review a api doc clarification for String.split()/Pattern.split().
>
> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200172
> webrev: http://cr
Thanks!
webrev has been updated as suggested.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev/
-Sherman
On 5/22/18, 4:30 PM, joe darcy wrote:
Hello,
I think some larger re-wording is in order. Here is one of the
proposed new paragraphs:
2181 * The {@code limit} parameter controls
Hello,
I think some larger re-wording is in order. Here is one of the proposed
new paragraphs:
2181 * The {@code limit} parameter controls the number of times the
2182 * pattern is applied and therefore affects the length of the
resulting
2183 * array. If the limit n is great
Hi Sherman
The change from non-positive to negative makes sense.
I would agree that a CSR should not be required (hopefully Joe D does also ;-) )
Best
Lance
> On May 22, 2018, at 7:07 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help review a api doc clarification for String.split()/Pattern.spl
Hi,
Please help review a api doc clarification for
String.split()/Pattern.split().
issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200172
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/8200172/webrev
As suggested, it appears to be clear, straightforward and less confusion
to simply
categorize
