Hi Joe,
> On May 20, 2019, at 8:58 AM, Joe Darcy wrote:
>
>> Looks fine.
+1
>> Is this worthy of a CSR? It seems like make-work except that it does change
>> the formal Java SE spec that is generated from javadoc.
>
> Fair point; new CSR at:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8
Hi Roger,
On 5/20/2019 6:00 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Joe,
Looks fine.
Should the bug be labeled noreg-doc?
Sure; I wasn't planning to write any tests for it.
Is this worthy of a CSR? It seems like make-work except that it does
change
the formal Java SE spec that is generated from jav
Hi Joe,
Looks fine.
Should the bug be labeled noreg-doc?
Is this worthy of a CSR? It seems like make-work except that it does change
the formal Java SE spec that is generated from javadoc.
Roger
On 5/19/19 3:09 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
While doing some other work, I noticed that java.lan
Hello,
While doing some other work, I noticed that java.lang.Number relies on
an implicit default constructor. Until there is a lint warning to find
these cases systematically (JDK-8071961: Add javac lint warning when a
default constructor is created), please review the diff below to address
