> On May 12, 2016, at 5:58 PM, David Holmes <david.hol...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> With all of the inherited methods @hidden, it looks like that section >> is left out altogether. > > Okay, so I have to say @hidden seems to me to be seriously flawed! If a class > has a method that can be called then IMHO that has to be documented in that > class as either being first defined, overridden, or inherited - it can't just > say nothing as-if the method were not there! > > If we are overriding in a trivial way that does not change the specification > at all then there should be a simple way to show that - perhaps the "Methods > inherited from ..." should be split into two parts: method implementations > inherited from ..., and method specifications inherited from ... ?? >
I agree for this case these methods should not be hidden as if it’s not there (that’s probably carried from the original @treatAsPrivate request). > I guess I need to raise this with the javadoc folk :( Is there a mailing list > for that? Can you file a JBS issue? Kumar is on vacation and will talk with him when he’s back. Mandy
