RFR: 8062773: Clarifications for Class specification

[Martin Buchholz]

Submitted.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
> Companion change to getFields has been submitted.  I plan on
> submitting this one soon if I don't hear any objections.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
>> I moved the change to getFields to another changeset, redid some
>> wording as suggested, harmonized getInterfaces and
>> getGenericInterfaces some more, and regenerated the
>> webrev.http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/Class-spec/
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, joe darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> This description in getGenericInterfaces
>>>
>>>  876      * <p> If this object represents a class, the return value is an
>>>  877      * array containing objects representing all interfaces
>>>  878      * implemented by the class. The order of the interface objects in
>>>
>>> could also be direct-ized.
>>>
>>> In getGenericInterfaces, the new text
>>>
>>>  899      * <p>If this {@code Class} object represents an array type, the
>>>  900      * interfaces {@code Cloneable} and {@code java.io.Serializable}
>>> are
>>>  901      * returned in that order.
>>>
>>> is redundant with the existing text
>>>
>>>  881      * represented by this object.  In the case of an array class, the
>>>  882      * interfaces {@code Cloneable} and {@code Serializable} are
>>>  883      * returned in that order.
>>>
>>> Exactly one copy of the Cloneable & Serializable assertion should be removed
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> With this change to getFields,
>>>
>>> 1540      * returns the public fields of the class and of all its
>>> superclasses and
>>> 1541      * superinterfaces.
>>>
>>> the bug will need a ccc request since the specification is changing (even if
>>> it is changing to match long-standing behavior).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Joe
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/4/2014 9:08 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [+core-libs-dev]
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I keep forgetting to add the mailing list to my review
>>>> requests.  I blame google's code review mail tool, which cc's the
>>>> right mailing lists automagically.
>>>>
>>>> Webrev updated to add a few more "direct"s, as suggested by Paul.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062773
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/Class-spec/
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 11:35 PM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Joe, Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like you to do a code review.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8062773
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/Class-spec/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks ok to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>   730      * @return the superclass of the class represented by this
>>>>> object.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could tweak that to say "the direct superclass..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>