Re: Fwd: Re: Codereview Request: 7039066 j.u.rgex does not match TR#18 RL1.4 Simple Word Boundaries and RL1.2 Properties

2011-04-24 Thread Xueming Shen
Two more names, UNICODE_PROPERTIES and UNICODE_CLASSES, are suggested. any opinion? -Sherman On 4/23/2011 6:50 PM, Xueming Shen wrote: Forwarding...forgot to include the list. Original Message Subject: Re: Codereview Request: 7039066 j.u.rgex does not match TR#18 RL1.4 Si

Re: Codereview Request: 7039066 j.u.rgex does not match TR#18 RL1.4 Simple Word Boundaries and RL1.2 Properties

2011-04-24 Thread Tom Christiansen
Xueming, the docs look good. On the name of the flag, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Perhaps between UNICODE_PROPERTIES and UNICODE_CLASSES, I would prefer the second one. The first makes me think of the regular properties like \p{Script=Greek} from RL1.2, not the compat proper

Re: Fwd: Re: Codereview Request: 7039066 j.u.rgex does not match TR#18 RL1.4 Simple Word Boundaries and RL1.2 Properties

2011-04-24 Thread Mark Davis ☕
There are pluses and minuses to any of them: UNICODE_SPEC, UNICODE_PROPERTY, UNICODE_CLASS, UNICODE_PROPERTIES, or UNICODE_CLASSES, although any would work in a pinch. I'd favor a bit the singular over the plural, given the usage. The term 'class' is not used much in Unicode, just for two propert

Re: Codereview Request: 7039066 j.u.rgex does not match TR#18 RL1.4 Simple Word Boundaries and RL1.2 Properties

2011-04-24 Thread Xueming Shen
Thanks Tom! The j.u.regex does not have its own direct access to PropList for now, have to use the properties from j..l.Character class. I will have to move those CharacterDateNN classes from the java.lang package (package private) to sun.lang or somewhere that both j.u.Character and j.u.regex