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

[Robert Field]

Much better representation. Thanks.
I think "new" is confusing in either location. The representation you have 
minus the "new" is good.

-Robert

P.S. they have WiFi in the jury selection room



On December 14, 2015 06:40:44 ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)
>>>
>>