Code review request for 6543593 "(reflect) Clarify private final field mutability"

[Joe Darcy]

Mike Duigou wrote:
> This looks good.
>
> Since accessibility is mutable I wonder if the wording should be:
>
>   
>>    * @exception IllegalAccessException    if this {@code Field} object is
>>    *              enforcing Java language access control and the underlying
>>    *              field is either inaccessible or final.
>>     
>
>
> To me "is enforcing" is a stronger hint that access control is settable.
>   

Okay; I'll push the change with "is enforcing" in Field and for 
consistency change the two instances of "enforces" to "is enforcing" in 
Method and Constructor.

Thanks,

-Joe

> Mike
>
> On Apr 4 2011, at 10:04 , Joe Darcy wrote:
>
>   
>> Alan Bateman wrote:
>>     
>>> Joe Darcy wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Fair enough.  How about just for the setter methods
>>>>
>>>> +     * @exception IllegalAccessException    if this {@code Field} object
>>>> +     *              enforces Java language access control and the underlying
>>>> +     *              field is inaccessible or is final.
>>>>         
>>> I think a comma before the "and" would make this a bit clearer (as the two conjunctions might force the reader to read it more than once to get the meaning).
>>>
>>> -Alan.
>>>       
>> How about for the setters
>>
>>    * @exception IllegalAccessException    if this {@code Field} object
>>    *              enforces Java language access control and the underlying
>>    *              field is either inaccessible or final.
>>
>> Updated webrev at
>>
>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/6543593.1/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Joe
>>     
>
>