hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6860431: Character.isSurrogate(char ch)

[Xueming Shen]

CR 6937842 Created, P4 java/classes_lang Unreadable \uXXXX in javadoc

The change fine. But maybe it would be better to "escape" the \u20ac as 
well, instead of
simply deleting them. Not a big deal.

-Sherman

Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Xueming,
>
> I believe you still owe me a review and bug filed for
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/javadoc-unicode-escapes/
>
> Martin
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 13:29, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:46, Ulf Zibis<Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de> wrote:
>>     
>>> Am 02.09.2009 19:11, David M. Lloyd schrieb:
>>>       
>>>> On 09/02/2009 12:03 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:40, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com
>>>>> <mailto:david.lloyd at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>>    Why not just do {@code \uD800}?  I'm like 60% sure that would work
>>>>>    just fine. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure it would fail.   Prove me wrong!
>>>>> Searching the JDK sources for regex
>>>>> ^ *\*.*\\u[0-9a-fA-F]{4}
>>>>> is a good way to find javadoc bugs, e.g.
>>>>> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#toLowerCase()
>>>>>           
>>>> Ah, you're right.  It worked in my previewer but not in the actual
>>>> javadoc.  It's pretty bad that that sequence has special meaning but you
>>>> can't escape a \ with another \.  I guess in the worst case you could always
>>>> do \u005CD800 or something like that.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Looks little better, but not much. Did somebody tried it (Martin)?
>>>       
>> Well.... learn something new every day.
>> Let's turn this into a fix.
>> It's yet another "turkish i" bug.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/javadoc-unicode-escapes/
>>
>> Xueming, please file a bug and review.
>>
>> Synopsis: Unreadable \uXXXX in javadoc
>> Description: Replace \uXXXX by \u005CXXXX, or simply delete
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>     
>>> If it works in a previewer, is there any chance to change the javadoc spec,
>>> staying backwards compatible?
>>>
>>> -Ulf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>