On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 09:30:59 GMT, Chris Hegarty <che...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Class.java line 4396:
>>
>>> 4394: * is unspecified. If this {@code Class} object represents a
>>> primitive type,
>>> 4395: * {@code void}, an array type, or a class or interface that is
>>> not sealed,
>>> 4396: * then null is returned.
>>
>> nit: s/null/`{@code null}`
>>
>> I'd suggest to clarify if this sealed class or interface has no permitted
>> subclass, something like this:
>> Returns an array containing {@code Class} objects representing the
>> direct subinterfaces or subclasses permitted to extend or
>> implement this class or interface if it is sealed. The order of such
>> elements
>> is unspecified. The array is empty if this sealed class or interface has no
>> permitted subclass.
>>
>> `@return` needs to be revised as well:
>> @return an array of {@code Class} objects of the permitted subclasses of
>> this sealed class or interface,
>> or {@null} if this class or interface is not sealed
>
> Mandy's suggested wording is good.
>
> I would like to add one more additional point of clarification. It would
> be good to strongly connect `isSealed` and `getPermittedClasses` in a
> first-class way in normative spec ( similar to isRecord and
> getRecordComponents ).
>
> For example,
>
> to `isSealed` add: "getPermittedSubclasses returns a non-null but possibly
> empty value for a sealed class."
>
> to `getPermittedSubclasses`: "If this class is not a sealed class, that is
> {@link
> * #isSealed()} returns {@code false}, then this method returns {@code
> null}.
> * Conversely, if {@link #isSealed()} returns {@code true}, then this
> method
> * returns a non-null value."
Please review the updated commit. It incorporates the changes to the comments
in Class.java suggested by Mandy and Chris.
Thanks, Harold
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/1675
