> On 28 Aug 2017, at 03:47, stanislav lukyanov <stanislav.lukya...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > On 25.08.2017 21:38, Paul Sandoz wrote: >>> On 25 Aug 2017, at 00:47, stanislav lukyanov >>> <stanislav.lukya...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 24.08.2017 23:43, Paul Sandoz wrote: >>>>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 23:49, stanislav lukyanov >>>>> <stanislav.lukya...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> I still think that instead of debugging this spec and making sure that it >>>>> behaves similarly to `asType` >>>>> it would be better to keep delegating to the implied `asType` and allow >>>>> it not to throw IAE for too many parameters. >>>>> >>>> I actually prefer the explicit approach here, rather than re-purposing >>>> asType and by extension asVarargsCollector (“as if by asType but …”), but >>>> i do take your point (IIRC) that the specification of asVarargsCollector >>>> could duplicate some common specification text. >>> Yes, I guess duplicating the text would help to avoid inconsistencies. >>> Should I file an RFE (P5?) for synchronizing the texts of >>> invokeWithArguments, asVaragsCollector and possibly asType? >>> >> Yes please, that would be useful. If you could suggest appropriate text even >> better :-) >> >> It might be best to add a section to the package html that can be linked to. >> >> > Done - https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186830 > Specific text is too hard at this time though :) - I'm not sure what would be > the best way to approach the refactoring, i.e. which part goes where. > I added some thoughts to the comments though. >
Thanks! As a counter-point to my suggestion of using package-info: sometimes its just better to duplicate comment text with some tweaks rather than abstract and share since the end result can become more complex. This may be one of those cases. Paul.
