Thanks for the feedback. On Mar 22 2011, at 16:12 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
> The changes look good. > > I have two minor comment: > > 1) "ranges.Such" typo, missing space after dot corrected. > > 2) "Though nothing enforces this recommendation as interfaces cannot > declare constructors". I'd tend to move this statement to before > the list, and maybe put it in parantheses after constructors. > Also my personal preference is to stay with "there is no way to" > rather than "nothing". That would look like: > > <p>All general-purpose sorted map implementation classes should > provide four "standard" constructors (though there is no way to > enforce this ...): > > This is just my personal preference. I'm ok with your changes as is. How about this version : * <p>All general-purpose sorted map implementation classes should provide four * "standard" constructors. It is not possible to enforce this recommendation * though as required constructors cannot be specified by interfaces. The * expected "standard" constructors for all sorted map implementations are: * <ol> > -Chris. > > On 03/22/11 08:12 PM, Mike Duigou wrote: >> Hello all; >> >> I have made a couple of styling improvements to the JavaDoc for SortedMap; >> principally conversion of an inline list to use the HTML<ol> tag. The >> remainder of the changes are updates to the standard javadoc tags. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mduigou/7029997/0/webrev/ >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >>
