RFR: 8231186: Replace html tag <code>foo</code> with javadoc tag {@code foo} in java.base

[Julia Boes]

Hi,

Thanks for noticing the glitch in the sdiffs, Naoto and Brent. I see 
that there is indeed an issue with the webrev script and I'm looking 
into a workaround.

The following classes are affected:

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/SecurityManager.java

src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Calendar.java

src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/ResourceBundle.java

src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/regex/Matcher.java


> java/io/InputStream.java:
>
>  243      * <p> The {@code read(b,} {@code off,} {@code len)} method
>
> I believe this can be simplified to:
>
> {@code read(b, off, len)}
>
> -- 

    Changed!


> Here's something I found examples of in several places, for instance 
> in PipedInputStream.java:
>
>  195      * @exception IOException If the pipe is <a href="#BROKEN"> 
> {@code broken}</a>,
>
> Here we have a link written out in HTML, with {@code} used within the 
> displayed text of the link.  This would typically be done instead by 
> using a @link tag, as on the next line:
>
>  196      *          {@link #connect(java.io.PipedOutputStream) 
> unconnected},
>
> Peeking at the generated HTML, AFAICT the @link tag takes care of 
> generating the <code></code> styling in the generated HTML.  I think 
> it's worth considering converting these <a href=...>'s to @link, 
> either now or as future work.

    Brent, I can make this change but can the @link tag link to a HTML
    id? It's not mentioned in the documentation
    https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/tools/windows/javadoc.html#link.


I expected occurrences of '<tt>' would need changes as well, but it 
appears there aren't any in java.base (some previous effort cleaned this 
up, I guess).

     That's right, there are none in java.base.


I recall thinking that many of the <code> should actually be changed 
to @link since use of <code> suggested ancient times before @link became 
available.
But "Perfect is the enemy of good".

     I agree, if that's ok I would leave that as future work ;)

Regards,
Julia