Review Request for JDK-8012937: Correct errors in javadoc comments (original) (raw)

Eric McCorkle eric.mccorkle at oracle.com
Tue Apr 23 14:46:15 UTC 2013

I believe so. Alex Buckley recommended the exact wording.

On 04/22/13 22:09, Joseph Darcy wrote:

Hello,

240 * Returns the number of formal parameters (whether explicitly 241 * declared or implicitly declared or neither) for the executable Are there parameters that are neither explicitly nor implicitly declared? I still think the follow comment is better deleted given the source that follows it: 157 // If a parameter has no name, return argX, where x is the 158 // index. 159 // -Joe On 4/22/2013 11:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: I have posted a newer version with some more edits. Please review and suggest any further changes.

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.01/ On 04/22/13 12:10, Eric McCorkle wrote: Hello,

Please review this simple change, which corrects some errors in the javadoc comments for method parameter reflection. Note that this changeset does not include any code changes. The webrev is here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.00/

Also, if you have any additional issues with the javadoc comments, please reply to this request with a description of the problem. Thanks, Eric

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list