On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 18:43:58 GMT, Daniel Fuchs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion on this but it would reduce the change if the >> re-word of the constructor descriptions was moved to a separate PR. > > My point was that we may not have to reword their description if we explain > why they are deprecated in the `@deprecated` note? I don't see anything in the refactored wording to say that it accepts IP literals so I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this is included it this PR or not. I think it important to expand the deprecated to clearly explain why it is deprecated. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30747#discussion_r3159651063
