Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v9]

2020-11-17 Thread Ian Graves
> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, argument > indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the variadic > arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by integers, > sometimes negative. For argument index, it's specified in the d

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v9]

2020-11-17 Thread Roger Riggs
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:58:29 GMT, Ian Graves wrote: >> The `java.util.Formatter` format specifies support for field widths, >> argument indexes, or precision lengths of a field that relate to the >> variadic arguments supplied to the formatter. These numbers are specified by >> integers, somet

RFR: 8251317: Support for CLDR version 38

2020-11-17 Thread Naoto Sato
Hi, Please review the changes for upgrading the CLDR data to version 38. The vast majority of the changes are simply the changes in CLDR upstream, and others are mainly test changes due to the locale data change. - Commit messages: - Updated the version in `cldr.md` files - Merge

Re: RFR: 8253459: Formatter treats index, width and precision > Integer.MAX_VALUE incorrectly [v9]

2020-11-17 Thread Stuart Marks
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 21:21:47 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote: >> Ian Graves has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional >> commit since the last revision: >> >> Adding test coverage. Tweaking wording in docs. > > test/jdk/java/util/IllegalFormatException/ArgumentIndexException.java

Re: RFR: 8251317: Support for CLDR version 38

2020-11-17 Thread Naoto Sato
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 23:19:23 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote: > Hi, > > Please review the changes for upgrading the CLDR data to version 38. The vast > majority of the changes are simply the changes in CLDR upstream, and others > are mainly test changes due to the locale data change. Looks like the gen