On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 12:03:44 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:

> Please review this superficial documentation cleanup that was triggered by 
> unrelated analysis of doc comments in JDK API.
> 
> The only effect that this multi-area PR has on the JDK API Documentation 
> (i.e. the observable effect on the generated HTML pages) can be summarized as 
> follows:
> 
> 
>     diff -ur build/macosx-aarch64/images/docs-before/api/serialized-form.html 
> build/macosx-aarch64/images/docs-after/api/serialized-form.html
>     --- build/macosx-aarch64/images/docs-before/api/serialized-form.html      
> 2023-03-02 11:47:44
>     +++ build/macosx-aarch64/images/docs-after/api/serialized-form.html       
> 2023-03-02 11:48:45
>     @@ -17084,7 +17084,7 @@
>                       throws <span class="exceptions"><a 
> href="java.base/java/io/IOException.html" title="class in 
> java.io">IOException</a>,
>      <a href="java.base/java/lang/ClassNotFoundException.html" title="class 
> in java.lang">ClassNotFoundException</a></span></div>
>      <div class="block"><code>readObject</code> is called to restore the 
> state of the
>     - (@code BasicPermission} from a stream.</div>
>     + <code>BasicPermission</code> from a stream.</div>
>      <dl class="notes">
>      <dt>Parameters:</dt>
>      <dd><code>s</code> - the <code>ObjectInputStream</code> from which data 
> is read</dd>
> 
> Notes
> -----
> 
> * I'm not an expert in any of the affected areas, except for jdk.javadoc, and 
> I was merely after misused tags. Because of that, I would appreciate reviews 
> from experts in other areas.
> * I discovered many more issues than I included in this PR. The excluded 
> issues seem to occur in infrequently updated third-party code (e.g. 
> javax.xml), which I assume we shouldn't touch unless necessary.
> * I will update copyright years after (and if) the fix had been approved, as 
> required.

Looks good to me.

I looked through all the changes, paying more attention to the client area.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/BootstrapMethodInvoker.java line 
257:

> 255: 
> 256:     /**
> 257:      * @return true iff the BSM method type exactly matches

I assume “iff” should “if”?

src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/code/Types.java line 2866:

> 2864:      * Merge multiple abstract methods. The preferred method is a 
> method that is a subsignature
> 2865:      * of all the other signatures and whose return type is more 
> specific {@link MostSpecificReturnCheck}.
> 2866:      * The resulting preferred method has a thrown clause that is the 
> intersection of the merged

Is it “…has a {@code throws} clause…”?

-------------

Marked as reviewed by aivanov (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12826

Reply via email to