hg: jdk7/tl/langtools: 7003550: Loosen modeling requirements for annotation processing erroneous code

[Joe Darcy]

brucechapman at paradise.net.nz wrote:
> Quoting Joe Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com>:
>
>   
>> On 12/9/2010 1:45 AM, Bruce Chapman wrote:
>>     
>>> On 9/12/2010 6:17 p.m., joe.darcy at oracle.com wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Changeset: 23fc45d3a572
>>>> Author: darcy
>>>> Date: 2010-12-08 21:21 -0800
>>>> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/langtools/rev/23fc45d3a572
>>>>
>>>> 7003550: Loosen modeling requirements for annotation processing 
>>>> erroneous code
>>>> Reviewed-by: jjg
>>>>
>>>> ! src/share/classes/javax/lang/model/element/package-info.java
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>  
>   
>>> + * code is not syntactically well-formed or has some other
>>> + * irrecoverable error that could not be removed by the generation
>>>       
>> of
>>     
>>> + * new types, a model may or may not be provided as a quality of
>>> + * implementation issue.
>>> + * If a program is syntactically valid but erroneous in some other
>>> + * fashion, any returned model must have no less information than if
>>> + * all the method bodies in the program were replaced by {@code
>>>       
>> "throw
>>     
>>> + * new RuntimeException();"}. If a program refers to a missing type 
>>> XYZ, A wee nit. Either the sentence starting at "If a program is 
>>> syntactically.." is part of the preceding paragraph in which case it 
>>> ought not start on a new line, OR it is the start of a new paragraph 
>>> so should be preceded by </p><p> - at present it looks like a new 
>>> paragraph in source code, but won't in the javadoc. Bruce
>>>
>>>       
>> Hi Bruce.
>>
>> That was actually intentional to avoid cascading formatting changes. In
>>
>> newer code, I've taken to sometimes separating the sentences of each 
>> paragraph with whitespace to avoid such reformatting issues down the
>> line.
>>     
>
> Ok,  that's a good idea, for consistency did you want to start 'If a program
> refers to a missing type..' on a new line also?
>
>   

If there is a more systematic pass over the JSR 269 API, I'll make this 
change universally, but for now I primarily just wanted to get in the 
spec change.

-Joe