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

[Eric McCorkle]

Any further comments, or is this one good to go?

On 04/23/13 19:54, Joseph Darcy wrote:
> 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
>>>>>
>