Thanks Jon. Actually I think replacing the regex with a short method is a very good idea, so I uploaded a new webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8200432/ Hannes > Am 16.11.2018 um 19:36 schrieb Jonathan Gibbons <[email protected]>: > > Hannes, > > I'm OK to defer a discussion on enhancing {@link}, and to go with the > proposed solution for now, regex and all. > > Your point about not supported more types is noted. While I might argue > that we should support "{@link String[]}", even I think that allowing {@link > int} would be going too far. > > -- Jon > > > On 11/16/2018 02:10 AM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote: >> Thanks for the feedback, Jon! >> >> I don’t understand the point of supporting more link types unless we have >> something to link to. For arrays we can link to the component type, but >> there’s no actual link target for the array of a specific type. >> >> Regarding the regex: I agree they’re not a great thing to read and maintain. >> It might be a good idea to replace that with a small method comparing the >> index of square brackets with that of left parenthesis. >> >> Hannes >> >>> Am 16.11.2018 um 02:42 schrieb Jonathan Gibbons >>> <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this, because while it prevents the CCE, >>> it seems to be generally going in the wrong direction. We need to be >>> looking at supporting more signatures in {@link}, not restricting the set >>> of supported signatures. While it may seem silly to write {@link String[]} >>> it does make sense to want to write {@link List<String>}. In other words, >>> we should accept type signatures that contain possible multiple names and >>> other punctuation, just as we can write {@link Object#equals(Other} and >>> have it do the right thing. >>> >>> I also note the use of a regular expression that is complicated enough for >>> Sundar to suggest that you use a comment. I would refer you to >>> http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247 >>> >>> -- Jon >>> >>> >>> On 11/14/2018 06:43 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >>>> Updated webrev looks good! >>>> >>>> -Sundar >>>> >>>> On 14/11/18, 8:25 PM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote: >>>>> Thanks, Sundar. >>>>> >>>>> I uploaded a new webrev with a comment: >>>>> >>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8200432/webrev.01/ >>>>> >>>>> Hannes >>>>> >>>>>> Am 13.11.2018 um 16:32 schrieb Sundararajan >>>>>> Athijegannathan<[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Looks good. >>>>>> >>>>>> Minor nit: There could be a source comment for this pattern in >>>>>> Checker.java >>>>>> + private final static Pattern arrayPattern = >>>>>> Pattern.compile("^[^\\(]+\\[]"); >>>>>> >>>>>> -Sundar >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13/11/18, 6:52 PM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote: >>>>>>> Please review: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Issue: >>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8200432 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Webrev: >>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8200432/webrev.00/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Hannes >>>>>>> >
