You have <p> before each paragraph except the second. (Personally, I put the <p> between the paragraphs, as it makes things like this simpler to read. I would also avoid the trailing "If" and lone "Specification" by adjusting the line spacing. See http://blog.joda.org/2012/11/javadoc-coding-standards.html)
Stephen On 8 January 2013 22:43, Joe Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: > PS The updated webrev is > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8005298.1/ > > Thanks, > > -Joe > > > On 01/08/2013 02:00 PM, Joe Darcy wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> On 01/08/2013 01:49 PM, Mike Duigou wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps {@code} around java.lang.Object. >> >> >> Agreed. >> >>> >>> The default method and overriding Object method sentences could perhaps >>> be said more simply: >>> >>> {@linkplain java.lang.reflect.Method#isDefault() default methods} in >>> interfaces do provide a method implementation and are not considered >>> abstract. >>> >>> Interface methods which match methods of java.lang.Object are not >>> considered abstract because an implementation (from java.lang.Object) is >>> always available. >>> >>> Mostly it's enough to say that they aren't abstract. The part about >>> abstract method count is superfluous. >> >> >> Okay; rewritten as: >> >> * Conceptually, a functional interface has exactly one abstract >> * method. Since {@linkplain java.lang.reflect.Method#isDefault() >> * default methods} have an implementation, they are not abstract. If >> * an interface declares an abstract method overriding one of the >> * public methods of {@code java.lang.Object}, that also does >> * <em>not</em> count toward the interface's abstract method count >> * since any implementation of the interface will have an >> * implementation from {@code java.lang.Object} or elsewhere. >> >>> >>> @jls ref for default methods. >> >> >> That is actually included in the draft text of 9.4.3 and so is covered by >> >> * @jls 9.4.3 Interface Method Body >>> >>> >>> @jls ref for methods of Object. >> >> >> That is a good addition; I'll include >> >> * @jls 4.3.2. The Class Object >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Joe >> >>> >>> On Jan 8 2013, at 13:24 , Joe Darcy wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> As discussed over on one of the Project Lambda lists [1], we're adding >>>> an interface type to the platform to explicitly mark interface types as >>>> being functional interfaces suitable for use in lambda expressions. Please >>>> review the addition of this new type: >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8005298.0/ >>>> >>>> Follow-up work will add @FunctionalInterface annotations to appropriate >>>> platform classes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -Joe >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/2012-December/000846.html >> >> >
