On 19/04/2012 21:49, David Holmes wrote:
Hi Jim,
On 20/04/2012 12:41 AM, Jim Gish wrote:
Hi David,
As I discussed with Alan, I don't think the conventions for @see in
general are very clear. One could argue that there are a number of
approaches that could be taken, among them: an exhaustive list, a
representative list, or one simple example.
Or no example at all.
I just don't think this changes the level of "strangeness" as
originally reported - and it would be interesting to know what the
reporter thinks of the suggested change.
But this isn't worth extensive debate so if Alan and co are happy with
this I'm not objecting.
Someone pointed out on the list [1] that there were a couple of
references to types/methods that are outdated and should be updated or
removed. I don't think it's worth doing an exhaustive update, just
ensure that the obvious references are relevant/useful. I'm not aware of
any guidelines or conventions as such.
-Alan
[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-January/008913.html
