On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:41:21 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 858:
>>
>>> 856: * usages of ForkJoinTasks ignore interrupt status when executing
>>> 857: * or awaiting completion. Otherwise, reporting task results or
>>> 858: * exceptions is preferred to throwing InterruptedExceptions,
>>
>> I wonder whether _“InterruptedExceptions”_ should be marked up with `{@code
>> InterruptedException}`s to refer to the class. As far as I can see, classes
>> and methods aren't marked up with `{@code}` here, so it's better to leave it
>> as is.
>
> That comment is not javadoc, so no need for markup. Although, I agree that
> this trailing "s" reads ugly because it interferes with the class name.
It would also be OK to just drop that "s" -> InterruptedException.
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinTask.java line 1076:
>>
>>> 1074: * Tries to join this task, returning true if it completed
>>> 1075: * (possibly exceptionally) before the given timeout elapsed and
>>> 1076: * the current thread has not been interrupted.
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> * (possibly exceptionally) before the given timeout elapsed and if
>> * the current thread has not been interrupted.
>>
>> Would it be clearer with another _“if”_? I assume, the meaning is
>> “…returning true if it completed … and if the current thread has not been
>> interrupted.”
>
> I'd leave it to @DougLea.
The extra "if" doesn't seem to add clarity.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20584#discussion_r1719761582
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20584#discussion_r1719762896
