On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:46, Ulf Zibis<ulf.zi...@gmx.de> wrote: > 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)?
Well.... learn something new every day. Let's turn this into a fix. It's yet another "turkish i" bug. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/javadoc-unicode-escapes/ Xueming, please file a bug and review. Synopsis: Unreadable \uXXXX in javadoc Description: Replace \uXXXX by \u005CXXXX, or simply delete Martin > If it works in a previewer, is there any chance to change the javadoc spec, > staying backwards compatible? > > -Ulf > > >
