RFR 8145263: JShell API: Change the format of SourceCodeAnalysis#documentation

[ShinyaYoshida]

Hi Jan,
Thank you for your review.

2015-12-14 23:24 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com>:

> Hi Shinya,
>
> Generally, looks good, thanks for looking at this! Two comments:
> -for parameter names, I was hoping we could get them from the sources
> (if/when available), but we are not doing that now, and hiding synthetic
> parameter names makes sense to me. So this is OK, and if we at some point
> start to parse parameter names from the sources, we can tweak the code to
> do the right thing.

I think that there should be the issue for the parameter names.
Do you have the issue for that?
If not, should I create it?


>
> -not sure if marking constructors with ".new"
> ("type-name.new(<parameters>)") will be clear - do you think the
> traditional form ("type-name(<parameters>)")  is unclear?
>

When I consider the constructor with the generics like following, I notice
that the traditional(current) form is difficult to represent it.
class C<T> { <U> C(U u) {} }
So I choose that format which is like the constructor reference.

Another possible representation is "new <Generics>
type-name<Generics>(<parameters>)" which is similar to the invocation of
the constructor with generics.

What do you think?

Regards,
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)


>
> Thanks,
>     Jan
>
>
> On 13.12.2015 07:33, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>
>> Hi Jan and Robert,
>> I'd like to propose changing the format of
>> SourceCodeAnalysis#documentation.
>>
>> The detail of the change is on the issue 8145263:
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145263
>> Please see it.
>>
>> You can see the more example in the test of my patch.
>>
>> Patch is here:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.00/
>>
>> Please consider my proposal and review the patch.
>>
>> Regards,
>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>
>