On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:31:15 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
>> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
>> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>>
>> In keeping with the policy to
On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:31:15 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
>> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
>> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>>
>> In keeping with the policy to
On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:31:15 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
>> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
>> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>>
>> In keeping with the policy to
On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:26:40 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> As a non-standard comment, it will trigger a warning (and hence an error),
>> since the prevailing standard for `java.base` is to compile with all
>> warnings enabled (`-Xlint`) and no warnings found (verified by `-Werror`)
>>
>> The alter
> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>
> In keeping with the policy to keep the `java.base` module free of all `javac`
> warnings, thi
On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:22:24 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> What about changing `///` to `//---` to give slightly more prominence to
> these comments, over plain old `//` comments. The dashes give a small sense
> of a horizontal rule, to delimit sections of code.
>
> (FWIW, I have locally edit
On Tue, 28 May 2024 18:50:38 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/icu/impl/StringPrepDataReader.java
>> line 122:
>>
>>> 120: * see store.c of gennorm for more information and values
>>> 121: */
>>> 122: // /* dataFormat="SPRP" 0x53, 0x50, 0x52,
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:23:48 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>
> In keeping with the policy to keep
On Tue, 28 May 2024 20:01:46 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > OK. I was just trying to honor the apparent intent to make the comment
> > stand out more than just a plain `//` comment, but I have no strong
> > feelings against reducing `///` to `//`
>
> In this case I would reduce it to '//' but ot
On Tue, 28 May 2024 18:57:07 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> OK. I was just trying to honor the apparent intent to make the comment stand
> out more than just a plain `//` comment, but I have no strong feelings
> against reducing `///` to `//`
In this case I would reduce it to '//' but others w
On Thu, 23 May 2024 05:52:57 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > A long vertical series of lines beginning /// is replaced by lines
> > beginning //|.
>
> This one looks unusual when it's just one line, I could imagine deleting the
> "|" in these cases.
OK. I was just trying to honor the apparent in
On Wed, 22 May 2024 20:13:08 GMT, Naoto Sato wrote:
>> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
>> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
>> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>>
>> In keeping with the policy to keep
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:23:48 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> A long vertical series of lines beginning /// is replaced by lines beginning
> //|.
This one looks unusual when it's just one line, I could imagine deleting the
"|" in these cases.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jd
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:23:48 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>
> In keeping with the policy to keep
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:23:48 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>
> In keeping with the policy to keep
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:23:48 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> With the advent of JEP 467, `///` comments may be treated as documentation
> comments, and may be subject to the recently new `javac` warning about
> "dangling doc comments" in unexpected places.
>
> In keeping with the policy to keep
On Fri, 10 May 2024 01:25:45 GMT, xiaotaonan wrote:
>> Clean up non-standard use of /// comments in `java.base`
>
> @mdinacci @hns @landonf
Hello @xiaotaonan, like Jon noted in his comment, there's already another PR
addressing this change. So I think this current PR can be closed.
--
On Fri, 10 May 2024 01:25:45 GMT, xiaotaonan wrote:
>> Clean up non-standard use of /// comments in `java.base`
>
> @mdinacci @hns @landonf
Hello @xiaotaonan, I see that you have several PRs of similar nature that have
been opened in the past day or two. I would recommend taking a look at the
On Thu, 9 May 2024 02:09:50 GMT, xiaotaonan wrote:
> Clean up non-standard use of /// comments in `java.base`
This PR is premature.
Until JEP 467 is integrated, there is nothing special about `///` comments, and
the compiler does not report on non-standard use.
There is a Draft PR for this iss
On Thu, 9 May 2024 02:09:50 GMT, xiaotaonan wrote:
> Clean up non-standard use of /// comments in `java.base`
@mdinacci @hns @landonf
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19151#issuecomment-2103685769
On Thu, 9 May 2024 02:09:50 GMT, xiaotaonan wrote:
> Clean up non-standard use of /// comments in `java.base`
Related to #19130. Good catch, these were probably not detected because they
were compiled at Java 8 language level and thus not detected by the new
compiler warnings.
-
21 matches
Mail list logo
