On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> I'll take this one.
Thanks.
> - * Returns a {@code Package} of the given <a href="#name">name</a> that
> + * Returns a {@code Package} of the given <a
> href="#binary-name">name</a> that
>
> Do Packages (I should really learn about Packages) actually have binary
> names?
Maybe but AFAICT they would be identical to the Java language name.
Rather than try to solve this distinction, in the spirit of solving
one bug at a time (and also laziness), I opted to just replace all
existing references and otherwise change nothing.
> I'm confused by the subject. There is no such bug
I submitted it via bugreport.java.com; it hasn't been reviewed yet. I
expect it might show up soon.
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:03 AM David Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> I discovered there are a couple of references outside of ClassLoader
>> as well. Here's the updated patch...
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 10:58 AM, David Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Since adding a field called "name" to java.lang.ClassLoader, the
>> > "name" anchor which previously referred to the section entitled
>> > "binary names" has been broken.
>> >
>> > The attached doc-only patch changes the name of the anchor to
>> > "binary-name". It applies with "patch -p1".
>> >
>> > --
>> > - DML
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - DML
--
- DML
