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

[Joseph Darcy]

Acknowledged; thanks for checking,

-Joe

On 4/23/2013 7:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> 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
>>>>