On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:08:11 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chen Liang has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 10 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - Revision after CSR review >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/deprecate-modifier-tostring >> - Fix failing test, typos >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/deprecate-modifier-tostring >> - Missed comment >> - Revisions >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/deprecate-modifier-tostring >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/deprecate-modifier-tostring >> - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into >> fix/deprecate-modifier-tostring >> - Deprecate Modifier.toString > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java line 38: > >> 36: * Modifier interpretation is context-sensitive: for example, the bit >> checked by >> 37: * {@link #isSynchronized(int) isSynchronized} only represents the {@code >> 38: * synchronized} modifier on methods, so a {@code true} return on a field > > The first paragraph uses "flags", the second paragraph switches to "bits", a > term that is never used again. The referenced AccessFlags or > javax.lang.model.element.Modifier doesn't speak of bits. So I'm wondering if > it would be better to say "the modifier checked by ..." rather than "bit > checked". I will use "access flags" consistently. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30093#discussion_r3124654999
