On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 17:45:07 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> In comments, I think the 'synchronized static 'reads better, the >>> conventional order is for the code. >> >> I think Roger is right and maybe the change to the javadoc could be dropped >> from this patch. > > It's tough when a natural language clashes with a programming language. I > appreciate that this particular clash might cause discomfort to native > English speakers. (This reminds me of that _DOSASCOMP_ mnemonic for adjective > order.) That said, consider the following pragmatic aspect. Unless we change > the script not to process prose in comments (btw, how would we do that?), > every single time we run that script, that particular line in Object.java > will need to be tracked and excluded. Here's a bit of archaeology. I found the original JDK-8136583 patch, which has moved from where it was in the RFR to https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/jdk9/blessed-modifier-order/. That patch doesn't change Object.java. The RFR thread mentions neither that javadoc change nor any javadoc change for that matter. So either the script was different, or Martin filtered that line (from Object.java) out before creating the webrev. Now, in his followup thread on core-libs-dev, http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035273.html, Martin specifically pointed out javadoc changes and said that they seem fine to him. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6213
