I believe so. Alex Buckley recommended the exact wording.
On 04/22/13 22:09, Joseph Darcy wrote: > Hello, > > 240 * Returns the number of formal parameters (whether explicitly > 241 * declared or implicitly declared or neither) for the executable > > Are there parameters that are neither explicitly nor implicitly declared? > > I still think the follow comment is better deleted given the source that > follows it: > > 157 // If a parameter has no name, return argX, where x is the > 158 // index. > 159 // > > -Joe > > On 4/22/2013 11:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >> I have posted a newer version with some more edits. Please review and >> suggest any further changes. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.01/ >> >> On 04/22/13 12:10, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Please review this simple change, which corrects some errors in the >>> javadoc comments for method parameter reflection. >>> >>> Note that this changeset does not include any code changes. >>> >>> The webrev is here: >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.00/ >>> >>> >>> Also, if you have any additional issues with the javadoc comments, >>> please reply to this request with a description of the problem. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Eric >>> >
