On 01.10.2009 17:09:48 Alexander Kiel wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
>
> > > > While researching I found that I seem to have used @code accidentally in
> > > > some places but with the actual intention of using @link (see
> > > > IFDocumentHandler, for example). What a mess. :-( I'll fix that.
> >
> > I've already fixed the obvious mistakes.
>
> There are only 23 other usages in tunk. So maybe you can replace them
> all with <code>.
I'll leave that to Vincent if he wants to change it. Leaving it as is is
fine by me.
> And there are also only 57 usages of <tt>. So maybe with regexp and
> reformat code...
No, you have to go through everyone because some of them are actually
{...@link}s. Anyway, I've changed all occurrences but this is as far as you
can manipulate me into doing work I didn't really want to do today. ;-) I've
still got some real work to get done.
> > > Oh I see :-) So there are currently 105 usages of {...@code} in the trunk.
> > > What to do? Can't we allow {...@code} if we generate Javadoc with Java
> > > 1.5?
> >
> > I guess it's no big deal. If people want clean javadocs they need to run
> > Javadoc 1.5. But IMO it's a bit premature to require {...@code} in our
> > conventions.
>
> Hmm. Okay I see the point. The switch from 1.4 to 1.5 have to be very
> clean. And it would be great if it would come soon. :-)
http://fop-dev.markmail.org/search/?q=%22Java%201.5%22 ;-)
Jeremias Maerki
