On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 18:17:36 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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. "to each his own". I think static synchronized reads best and more natural than synchronzied static. Also from a semantic point of view as it conveys class level characteristic thus lends static to having a prominence in specified order. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6213
