RFR: 8310242: Clarify the name parameter to Class::forName [v6]

[Mandy Chung]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 23:06:23 GMT, Chen Liang <liach at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Mandy Chung has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains eight additional commits since the last revision:
>> 
>>  - improve the specification of forName
>>  - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into JDK-8310242
>>  - Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/openjdk/jdk into JDK-8310242
>>  - Review comment.  Add a test
>>  - missing 'L' for the array class name
>>  - review comment
>>  - Clarify for an array class of primitive type
>>  - 8310242: Clarify the name parameter to Class::forName
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Class.java line 438:
> 
>> 436:      * representing primitive types or void, hidden classes or interfaces,
>> 437:      * or array classes whose element type is a hidden class or interface.
>> 438:      * If {@code name} denotes a primitive type or void, for example {@code I},
> 
> I think `{@code int}` would be a better example here as Java programmers aren't in touch with bytecode descriptors mostly.

One main point for this example to show is that it will find a class in unnamed package named `I` - a class named `I` is not uncommon but it's unlikely to have a class named `int`.

> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Class.java line 459:
> 
>> 457:      * from {@code forName(}<i>N</i>{@code )} returns <i>N</i>.
>> 458:      *
>> 459:      * <p> A call to {@code forName("[L}<i>N</i>{@code ;")} causes the element type
> 
> This appears true for multi-dimensional arrays as well, but the name format here only applies to single-dimension arrays.

I considered that.   The spec and the example already describe multi-dimensional array.  I think one can infer from this single-dimensional array example.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14528#discussion_r1237904930
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14528#discussion_r1237906383