On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:00:18 GMT, Joe Darcy <da...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Add a few apiNote concerning source-level modifiers that are not represented
> in java.lang.reflect.Modifier.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java line 237:
> 235: * To make a high-fidelity representation of the Java source
> 236: * modifiers of a class or member, source-level modifiers that do
> 237: * not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be
Suggestion:
* <em>not</em> have a constant in this class should be
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java line 238:
> 236: * modifiers of a class or member, source-level modifiers that do
> 237: * not <em>not</em> have a constant in the this class should be
> 238: * included and ordered consistent with the full recommended
Suggestion:
* included and ordered consistently with the full recommended
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/reflect/Modifier.java line 243:
> 241: * {@linkplain Method#toGenericString() method} the "{@link
> 242: * Method#isDefault() default}" modifier is ordered immediately
> 243: * before "{@code static}" (JLS {@jls 9.4}). For a {@linkplain
Nothing wrong with that, but note that unlike other similar sections, for
whatever reason, JLS 9.4 does **not** suggest this:
> If two or more (distinct) ... modifiers appear in a ... declaration, it is
> customary, though not required, that they appear in the order consistent with
> that shown above in the production for ...
I [mused] about the reasons behind it recently, but only JLS experts know them
for sure. (CC'in @dansmithcode)
[mused]:
https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2024-January/117398.html
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17338#discussion_r1447162013
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17338#discussion_r1447165140
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/17338#discussion_r1447218402
