RFR: 8358618: UnsupportedOperationException constructors javadoc is not clear [v3]

[Alexey Ivanov]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 15:00:11 GMT, Nizar Benalla <nbenalla at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Please review this patch that extends the javadoc of `UnsupportedOperationException` no-arg constructor, to clear up that the detail message is null.
>
> Nizar Benalla has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Feedback from Alexey.

Overall, it looks good to me. What's left is agreeing on how the updated text is formatted in the source code.

I'm unsure if a CSR is required. The specification isn't updated substantially for `RuntimeException`; the changes for `UnsupportedOperationException` are quite substantial,  so submitting CSR would be a good idea to document the changes made.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/UnsupportedOperationException.java line 60:

> 58:     /**
> 59:      * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified detail message and
> 60:      * cause.

Suggestion:

     * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified
     * detail message and cause.

I'm for wrapping the line after the word “specified” to fit into 80 columns.

src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/UnsupportedOperationException.java line 81:

> 79:      * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified cause and a detail
> 80:      * message of {@code (cause==null ? null : cause.toString())} (which
> 81:      * typically contains the class and detail message of {@code cause}).

This one is trickier. Wrapping the line will cause a ripple effect on the following lines, which I'd like to avoid or to minimise at least.
Suggestion:

     * Constructs a new {@code UnsupportedOperationException} with the specified
     * cause and a detail message of
     * {@code (cause==null ? null : cause.toString())} (which
     * typically contains the class and detail message of {@code cause}).

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

Changes requested by aivanov (Reviewer).

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#pullrequestreview-3097822567
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#discussion_r2260779017
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26533#discussion_r2260785918