I'll be honest and say I dislike the convention of using <code> for
null, as as such I'm not greatly enthused by this change. I'd prefer if
no more files were changed.
This comes down to my basic tenet that javadoc is for developers to
read, and it is *frequently* read as source code, not as an HTML page.
Adding the <code> makes its *much* more difficult for someone to read
the text. And its the text that matters.
Just read the two lines below and decide which is easier to read and
extract meaning from.
In addition, since every Java programmer knows that null is a reserved
word, I really don't see what is gained by highlighting it.
Stephen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: ggregory
Date: Mon Jan 1 14:45:49 2007
New Revision: 491668
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=491668
Log:
Add missing Javadoc tags. Use "null" is code format (<code>null</code>)
- * @param file the file to open for input, not null
+ * @param file the file to open for input, must not be <code>null</code>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
