RFR [15] 8236435: Fix typos in javac area

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

Looks good! Thanks for doing this. Some comments:

* ClientCodeWrapper: should "propagate upwards" be replaced with 
"propagated upwards" ? Or perhaps we should use consistent wording with 
the phrase below "... are left alone to continue propagating upwards."

*  ArgumentAttr: "behavior is influences by the currently selected cache 
policy." -->  s/influences/influenced

* Check.java: "(except this in typesSkip)" -> s/this/those

* LambdaToMethod: " (rather than i.e. accessing to captured members" - I 
think we can drop the "to"

* Modules: "not the entire provides tree" - should "provides" be in a 
code block?

* RichDiagnosticFormatter: "after these information is collected" --> 
s/these/this


Maurizio



On 20/12/2019 15:44, Pavel Rappo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please review the following change for https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8236435:
>
>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8236435/webrev.00/
>
> I've been reading up on the javadoc code and comments. At one point, jumping
> through the links, I reached the javax.tools.DocumentationTool and
> com.sun.tools.javac.util.ClientCodeException, which reside in java.compiler and
> jdk.compiler respectively. I found a couple of typos there and fixed them.
>
> One thing led to another and half an hour later I found myself compulsively
> checking the full javac code base for typos and spelling. Sigh.
>
> Long story short, I just went ahead and fixed as many issues as I could in one
> sitting. There was a lot.
>
> On the bright side, this patch doesn't involve any code changes (except for
> spelling in internal variables and methods' parameters), addresses aesthetic
> issues, readability, helps with searches and assists IDEs to pick up usages
> more reliably when refactoring (e.g. renaming).
>
> The initial concern with DocumentationTool turned out to be more subtle and I
> decided not to include it in this patch. It is definitely not just a typo and
> might require a CSR.
>
> Please review at your convenience. Hopefully, if there are false positives,
> you'll catch them.
>
> I suggest reviewing this change using a diff tool with a character-level
> resolution. That is, a tool capable of highlighting mismatching characters in
> lines that differ.
>
> All test/langtools tests pass. Copyright years will be fixed before the push.
>
> Thanks,
> -Pavel
>