Hi Jon,
> On 17 Jan 2020, at 18:25, Jonathan Gibbons <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Good feedback.
>
> The javadoc wording was deliberately more vague, because I couldn't think of
> anything accurate and more specific to say. Essentially, we just want to
> convey/enable one bit of info ... you'll get a non-zero exit code if any
> warnings occur.
I thought that javac's wording was more vague. The intent is clear though.
> <snip>
>
> The other reason was because I couldn't think of a good word to replace
> "compilation". Any suggestions?
Could (compilation, compiling) map to (documentation, documenting)?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/documentation
1: the act or an instance of furnishing or authenticating with documents
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/documenting
> The proposed javadoc text does not preclude lazy behavior; it delegates to
> the general rules for errors, for which nothing is specified(!) although it
> is common practice to terminate work "sometime after" the diagnostic occurs.
> Normally, javac continues to the end of the current phase, since the check of
> "should I continue" is done between phases.
ok.
> Note that javadoc *does* have -Xmaxerrs and -Xmaxwarns, and (surprisingly?)
> they are actually in alignment with javac!
Dang! I missed that. Perhaps because I was looking at (sadly, outdated) man
pages, rather than the output of `%tool-name% -X`. In contrast to javadoc's man
page, javac's does provide info about those options.
-Pavel
