On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:22:13 GMT, Joe Darcy <da...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review the javadoc change below, written in response to recent
> discussion on core-libs.
>
> The bulk of the change is to add a discussion to java.lang.reflect's
> package-info file about a language vs JVM model for core reflection. That
> discussion is then linked to from several relevant locations core reflection.
> A discussion of generic parameter handling is also added along with various
> small cleanups.
>
> I'll update copyright, etc. after agreement on the text is reached.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/package-info.java line 79:
> 77: * differ from the modifiers on the originating element in the source
> 78: * language, including {@link Modifier#FINAL final} on a {@linkplain
> 79: * Parameter#getModifiers() parameter} and and {@code protected},
and and -> "and"
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/package-info.java line 85:
> 83: * <p>Besides differences in structural representation between the
> 84: * source language and the JVM representation, core reflection also
> 85: * exposed runtime specific information. For example, the {@linkplain
exposed -> exposes
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Executable.java line 262:
> 260: * Returns an array of {@code Type} objects that represent the
> 261: * formal parameter types, in declaration order, of the executable
> 262: * represented by this object. Returns an array of length 0 if the
Missing subject of the sentence? "This method returns"...
Or "An array of length 0 is returned"...
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3036
