Hi Mandy,
On 10/18/2016 04:14 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
I have tried to capture the precise behavior in the changed javadocs
that I present here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/webrev.06/
On 11/02/2016 04:12 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
1786 * (clearly, it M's and N's declaring types are the same type,
then
1957 * (clearly, it M's and N's declaring types are the same type,
then
typo: s/it/if
There are phrases such as "methods are kept” - what about “select” instead of
“keep”? AFAICT, the algorithm is correct. I feel that the spec wording could be
improved a little but that can be done later. I think this version is good for CCC
submission.
When you update the source, you use <OL>, <LI> capital letters - our convention uses
lowercase <ol>, <li> etc.
One leftover IDE-specific suppress warnings:
111 @SuppressWarnings("StringEquality”)
The patch looks good to me. I will do one more pass and reply to the open.
Mandy
On 11/02/2016 04:43 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
A few other comments for consideration:
methods with same VM signature (return type, name, parameter types)
Would it be better to say "methods with the signature (name and parameter types) and
with same return type"?
declared public methods (including static)
Alternatively, you could say:
declared public static and instance methods
• Include the results of invoking this algorithm recursively on all direct
superinterfaces of C, excluding any static methods.
An alternative:
All public instance methods of all direct superinterfaces of C
Mandy
Here is a webrev incorporating your suggestions:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk9-dev/Class.getMethods.new/webrev.07/
I think this could be used as a submission for CCC.
Regards, Peter
