Any further comments, or is this one good to go?
On 04/23/13 19:54, Joseph Darcy wrote: > Acknowledged; thanks for checking, > > -Joe > > On 4/23/2013 7:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >> I believe so. Alex Buckley recommended the exact wording. >> >> On 04/22/13 22:09, Joseph Darcy wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> 240 * Returns the number of formal parameters (whether explicitly >>> 241 * declared or implicitly declared or neither) for the >>> executable >>> >>> Are there parameters that are neither explicitly nor implicitly >>> declared? >>> >>> I still think the follow comment is better deleted given the source that >>> follows it: >>> >>> 157 // If a parameter has no name, return argX, where x is the >>> 158 // index. >>> 159 // >>> >>> -Joe >>> >>> On 4/22/2013 11:46 AM, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>>> I have posted a newer version with some more edits. Please review and >>>> suggest any further changes. >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.01/ >>>> >>>> On 04/22/13 12:10, Eric McCorkle wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Please review this simple change, which corrects some errors in the >>>>> javadoc comments for method parameter reflection. >>>>> >>>>> Note that this changeset does not include any code changes. >>>>> >>>>> The webrev is here: >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~emc/8012937/webrev.00/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, if you have any additional issues with the javadoc comments, >>>>> please reply to this request with a description of the problem. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Eric >>>>> >
