Hello,
Getting back to this issue in the new year, taking a closer look at the
existing class-level documentation, I don't really see a compelling case
for an edit this large.
I for one would be content if the bug were closed as "not an issue."
HTH,
-Joe
On 12/22/2014 10:46 AM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
Please review at your convenience:
Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067669
Patch: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/8067669/webrev.00/
Summary:
Add some verbiage.
I would advocate either changing the verbiage either to the content in the
patch or something better, or resolving the issue as “Not an Issue.”
Thanks,
Brian
On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com>
wrote:
On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:26 PM, joe darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote:
I don't really think the current text is problematic; however, if it is to be changed, I
recommending including a citation to the "Narrowing primitive conversion"
section of the Java Language Specification. This can be accomplished using the @jls
javadoc tag; the syntax is something like
* @jls 5.1.3. Narrowing Primitive Conversion
Examples of the use of @jls can be found elsewhere in the core libraries.
This is already in the class level documentation which is why I left it out. No
harm adding it to the method docs however.
For the exact wording how about
... The particular semantics of the conversion operation from the specified
number to a {@code long} are defined in subclasses. The operation may involve
a narrowing conversion, rounding, or truncation.
Seems reasonable to me.
