Review Request for JDK-8012937: Correct errors in javadoc comments

[Eric McCorkle]

I believe so.  Alex Buckley recommended the exact wording.

On 04/22/13 22:09, Joseph Darcy wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>  240      * Returns the number of formal parameters (whether explicitly
>  241      * declared or implicitly declared or neither) for the executable
> 
> Are there parameters that are neither explicitly nor implicitly declared?
> 
> I still think the follow comment is better deleted given the source that
> follows it:
> 
>  157         // If a parameter has no name, return argX, where x is the
>  158         // index.
>  159         //
> 
> -Joe
> 
> On 4/22/2013 11:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>> I have posted a newer version with some more edits.  Please review and
>> suggest any further changes.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.01/
>>
>> On 04/22/13 12:10, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review this simple change, which corrects some errors in the
>>> javadoc comments for method parameter reflection.
>>>
>>> Note that this changeset does not include any code changes.
>>>
>>> The webrev is here:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.00/
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, if you have any additional issues with the javadoc comments,
>>> please reply to this request with a description of the problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eric
>>>
>