Am 02.09.2009 19:11, David M. Lloyd schrieb:
On 09/02/2009 12:03 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:40, David M. Lloyd <david.ll...@redhat.com
<mailto:david.ll...@redhat.com>> wrote:
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()
Ah, you're right. It worked in my previewer but not in the actual
javadoc. It's pretty bad that that sequence has special meaning but
you can't escape a \ with another \. I guess in the worst case you
could always do \u005CD800 or something like that.
Looks little better, but not much. Did somebody tried it (Martin)?
If it works in a previewer, is there any chance to change the javadoc
spec, staying backwards compatible?
-Ulf
