Hi Alexander,
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/File.java
1.
- * <blockquote><tt>
- * new File(</tt><i> f</i><tt>.{@link #toURI()
toURI}()).equals(</tt><i> f</i><tt>.{@link #getAbsoluteFile()
getAbsoluteFile}())
- * </tt></blockquote>
+ * <blockquote>
+ * {@code new File(f.}{@link
+ * #toURI() toURI}{@code ()).equals(f.}{@link
+ * #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}{@code ())}
+ * </blockquote>
Sorry I missed the <i></i> in my previous suggestion - so
wrapping the whole thing with <code> is probably the better idea,
something like:
* <blockquote><code>
* new File(<i> f</i>.{@link
* #toURI() toURI()}.equals(<i> f</i>.{@link
* #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile()}
* </code></blockquote>
Whatever you chose to do - please do verify how the new javadoc
looks when changing such complex formatted statements.
2.
- * <blockquote><tt>
- * new {@link #File(java.net.URI)
File}(</tt><i> f</i><tt>.toURI()).equals(</tt><i> f</i><tt>.{@link
#getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}())
- * </tt></blockquote>
+ * <blockquote>
+ * {@code new }{@link #File(java.net.URI) File}{@code
.toURI()).equals(f.}
+ * {@link #getAbsoluteFile() getAbsoluteFile}{@code ())}
+ * </blockquote>
As Stuart noted this second change is wrong - it's missing
(f.
I also believe we should keep the original italics
around 'f'.
Can you please generate a specdiff so that we can verify that
there's nothing wrong with the new javadoc?
It is very easy to miss something with such changes...
best regards,
-- daniel
On 03/08/15 11:31, Alexander Stepanov wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the following fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132468/webrev.00/
for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8132468
Just some cleanup for docs (replacing obsolete "<tt></tt>").
Thanks,
Alexander
