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

[ShinyaYoshida]

Hi Robert and Jan,
I've updated the webrev to current code base:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.10/

Could you review this?

Regards,
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)


2016-09-27 4:51 GMT+09:00 ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com>:

> Hi Robert,
> Never mind! And I'm also sorry for having left this.
>
> I'll try updating webrev to current code base until 1/Oct.
>
> BTW, currently a lot of things in jshell are configurable, could signature
> of documentation also be configurable in future(JDK10 or 9.1 or ...)?
>
> Thank you,
> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>
> 2016-09-26 12:41 GMT-07:00 Robert Field <robert.field at oracle.com>:
>
>> In reviewing outstanding issues, we discovered this RFR which was left
>> hanging.
>>
>> Our sincere apologies for dropping the ball on this.
>>
>> We are juggling a lot, if we miss something like this in the future,
>> please let us know.
>>
>> I have made some changes in the issue, please note them.  I know there
>> have been some underlying changes as well (parameter names from source).
>>
>> If you would be willing to update this RFR we will review promptly.
>>
>> Thank you and sorry,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> On 12/15/15 17:07, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>
>> 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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>