On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 20:46:17 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the main
> description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its `@return`
> tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the **previous**
> value, as the whole point of the method is not the replace t
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:11:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous**
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:27:31 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Yeah, I wasn't sure about that, I can make it more specific, I used
>> `considered` here because both unmapped keys and keys mapped to `null` are
>> considered to be absent.
>
> I think `absent or {@code null}` is no less concise yet it is
> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the main
> description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its `@return`
> tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the **previous**
> value, as the whole point of the method is not the replace t
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:40:44 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the main
> description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its `@return`
> tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the **previous**
> val
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 11:03:28 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Map.java line 820:
>>
>>> 818: * @param key key with which the specified value is to be
>>> associated
>>> 819: * @param value value to be associated with the specified key
>>> 820: *
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 10:41:04 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the
>> main description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its
>> `@return` tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the
>> **previous** v
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 07:40:44 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> Update the documentation for `@return` tag of `putIfAbsent` to match the main
> description. `putIfAbsent` uses the same wording as `put` for its `@return`
> tag, but that is incorrect. `putIfAbsent` never returns the **previous**
> val
13 matches
Mail list logo
