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

[ShinyaYoshida]

Hi Jan and Robert,
Thank you.

I've filed:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145473

Ok, I put the type parameters for the constructor before the
traditional(current) form:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.01/

Please review it again.

Regards,
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)


2015-12-16 5:56 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com>:

> 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)
>>
>>
>>