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

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Shinya,

On 14.12.2015 15:40, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> Thank you for your review.
>
> 2015-12-14 23:24 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com
> <mailto: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?

No issue for this yet.

> If not, should I create it?

Sure, thanks.

>
>
>     -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.

I think generic constructors (i.e. constructors that themselves have 
type parameters) are very uncommon, so I wouldn't optimize for those. 
Having the format nice for usual constructors is more important, I 
think, even if the format for these uncommon constructors would be uglier.

Thanks,
     Jan

>
> 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)
>
>