On 10/31/19 7:18 AM, Remi Forax wrote:
For nested classes, on the other hand, I’m not quite as sure. The rule about
“nested records are implicitly static” is a little more subtle than the one
about finality.
I will just add that enums have exactly the same rule, an enum is always static
when
Hi Kumar,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll be posting another webrev shortly.
Let me respond here to some of the issues you raise.
+ // Special case to allow '{@link ...}' to appear in the string.
+ // A less general case would be to detect literal use of Object.equals
+ // A more general case wo
Hannes,
Thanks, I'll check and fix the imports.
-- Jon
On 11/5/19 8:19 AM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote:
Jon,
Both the code and the generated documentation look good to me.
A minor issue I noticed with the default branch patch is that it adds quite a
few unused imports in TagletWriterImpl, ClassB
Jon,
Both the code and the generated documentation look good to me.
A minor issue I noticed with the default branch patch is that it adds quite a
few unused imports in TagletWriterImpl, ClassBuilder, and TagletWriter.
Hannes
> Am 31.10.2019 um 00:50 schrieb Jonathan Gibbons :
>
> Please rev
Hi Jon,
Firstly I must commend the javadoc.next project for updating javadoc/doclet
to use jx.l.m and
other improvements to the doc comments management, this has made it
relatively easy for javadoc
to implement new language features, such as this. Having said that, the
changes are looking
great, a
- Mail original -
> De: "Brian Goetz"
> À: "jonathan gibbons"
> Cc: "amber-dev" , "javadoc-dev"
> , "compiler-dev"
> , "Chris Hegarty"
> Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2019 15:05:33
> Objet: Re: RFR: JEP 359-
Aside from Chris comments on modifiers, I think the compact record
signature looks great, and adds a lot of value (which will pay further
dividends when we add pattern matching). Well done.
Annotations also look good.
Maurizio
On 30/10/2019 23:50, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Please review a moder
Let’s look at this through the lens of “what information would the reader want
to know about this class.” And surely, finality is one of the bits of
information the reader wants to know, because they might be wondering “can I
subclass this.” On the other hand, you might say “well of course, re
On 10/31/19 3:31 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Jon,
On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:50, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
...
Also, the sets of examples are updated, showing examples linked and not linked
to JDK API docs
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records/examples/api-with-link/
http://cr.openjdk.java.
Jon,
> On 30 Oct 2019, at 23:50, Jonathan Gibbons
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Also, the sets of examples are updated, showing examples linked and not
> linked to JDK API docs
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records/examples/api-with-link/
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records/examp
Please review a moderately small update to the proposed support for
records in javadoc.
The primary change is to include record components in the signature of a
record displayed near the top of the page.
In addition, a "combo test" is added into TestRecordTypes.java to verify
the presence or
Answering to myself here:
On 18/10/2019 13:28, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
One high-level gripe which is pointing at a failure of the j.l.model
API is the lack of a way to get to the canonical constructor directly;
we have this issue both in core reflection and source reflection, and
I think
> On 18 Oct 2019, at 13:28, Maurizio Cimadamore
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> One high-level gripe which is pointing at a failure of the j.l.model API is
> the lack of a way to get to the canonical constructor directly; we have this
> issue both in core reflection and source reflection, and I think
Generally, for historical reasons I accept, the jx.l.m model API has not
been very friendly with helpful utility methods, going for a more
minimalist approach, although I sense that is changing, maybe in part
because of default methods.
With respect to accessing the canonical constructor, I wo
I went through the javadoc changes and, although I'm no javadoc expert,
they seem clean enough, to the point that I could follow the logic quite
easily.
One high-level gripe which is pointing at a failure of the j.l.model API
is the lack of a way to get to the canonical constructor directly; w
cc: javadoc-dev@openjdk.java.net
--Jon
On 10/17/2019 12:43 PM, Vicente Romero wrote:
Hi,
Please review the javadoc code for JEP 359 (Records), this webrev
contains only the javadoc code as we have decided to split the new
code in clusters to make the review process easier.
Thanks in advan
forwarding to javadoc-dev
Forwarded Message
Subject:RFR: JEP 359-Records: javadoc code
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:43:07 -0400
From: Vicente Romero
To: Amber dev ,
compiler-...@openjdk.java.net
CC: Jonathan Gibbons , Hannes Wallnoefer
Hi,
Please review
17 matches
Mail list logo
