You don’t think it “sloppy†to have a technique recommended in one place and
deprecated in another part of the same spec?
Where does that happen? You haven't cited any such thing and I don't know of
such a thing. In the particular case here, Joshua Cranmer has already shown
you where you went wrong. Don't you assimilate these responses, or are you
simply a troll?
The JLS is obfuscatory in parts, and a bit light in other parts. but I don't
agree that it's "sloppy". That is not to claim it cannot be improved, but
overall I find it precise and reliable.
Anyway, you started this thread with the claim that the JLS is riddled with
errors and typos. Now you're saying merely that it is "sloppy" (whatever that
means) in parts. Some of what you offer as evidence is not sloppy, but
difficult to understand and clearly you have not yet understood those parts.
While I see why they're difficult to understand, as they are for me and for
just about anyone, our lack of understanding is not equivalent to error or
typo in the JLS.
Try fixing your understanding instead of what isn't broken.
If your goal is rather to troll, and refuse to accept anything that folks are
telling you, I'm sorry to say you aren't being very notable. Trolls here set
a much higher standard. You'll have to step it up. Start attacking us
personally! Shift the ground of your discourse more. You're already on the
way with erroneous statements of fact ("Virtual methods started with C++") and
simple restatement of claims already refuted in the discussion. But that's
kid stuff. Bring it, dude!
--
Lew
Ceci n'est pas une fenêtre.
..___________.
|###] | [###|
|##/ | *\##|
|#/ * | \#|
|#----|----#|
|| | * ||
|o * | o|
|_____|_____|
|===========|