On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:40, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/02/2009 11:27 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 01:07, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de <mailto: >> ulf.zi...@gmx.de>> wrote: >> Am 02.09.2009 05:21, Martin Buchholz schrieb: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 01:29, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@gmx.de >>> <mailto:ulf.zi...@gmx.de>> wrote: >>> >>> {...@code is now the preferred way. I tried to modify the methods I >>> changed, >>> but didn't try to change the whole file. >>> >> >> You also have added old style, so I asked why you have mixed it: >> >> /** >> - * The minimum value of a Unicode surrogate code unit in the UTF-16 >> encoding. >> + * The minimum value of a Unicode surrogate code unit in the >> + * UTF-16 encoding, constant <code>'\uD800'</code>. >> * >> * @since 1.5 >> */ >> public static final char MIN_SURROGATE = MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE; >> >> I would have used {...@code here if I could figure out >> how to make it work >> ("\" shows up literally in the generated output). >> > > Why not just do {...@code \uD800}? I'm like 60% sure that would work just > fine. :-) > I'm pretty sure it would fail. Prove me wrong! Searching the JDK sources for regex ^ *\*.*\\u[0-9a-fA-F]{4} is a good way to find javadoc bugs, e.g. http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#toLowerCase() Martin > - DML > >
