On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:16:21 GMT, Joe Darcy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/module/ModuleDescriptor.java line 217:
>>
>>> 215: /**
>>> 216: * {@return an unmodifiable set of the module {@linkplain
>>> AccessFlag
>>> 217: * requires flags}, possibly empty}
>>
>> The link fix looks okay but the wording in the new accessFlags() method is
>> different to the wording in the other methods. The other methods use
>> "possibly-empty unmodifiable" in the return description. Either is fine but
>> I think we should try to keep the wording consistent where possible.
>
> I've looked over the wording of the various accessFlags methods. The wording
> for ModuleDescriptor.Requires looks consistent to me:
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the module flags, possibly empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the module export flags for this module
> descriptor, possibly empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the module opens flags, possibly empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the module requires flags, possibly empty.
>
> ----
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for this class, possibly
> empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for the executable
> represented by this object, possibly empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for this member, possibly
> empty.
>
> Returns an unmodifiable set of the access flags for the parameter represented
> by this object, possibly empty.
>
> Am I overlooking something in the twisty passages, all alike?
If you compare the javadoc for the modifiers vs. accessFlags in each of
ModuleDescriptor, Requires, Exports, and Opens then you'll see what I mean. I
was hoping they could be inconsistent.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9912
