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

[Joe Darcy]

Please remove lines 157-159; otherwise, looks fine.

Thanks,

-Joe

On 04/24/2013 09:35 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>