On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:38:57 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Just from reading that alone, (and not reading code or sample output yet)
> > that seems mildly questionable, in that we otherwise generally encourage
> > the provision of `@param` tags for all parameters, whether they are
> > type-level or member-level type-parameters, or plain old executable
> > (constructor, method) parameters.
> > (Update: maybe I misread or misunderstood the comment.)
>
> What I meant is that `javadoc` by itself will not create links to
> member-level type parameters, but it is possible to create such links using
> `{@link ...}` or `@see ...`. However, the anchor/id used in those links will
> only be valid if the target type parameter is documented with a `@param` tag.
> So it's up to the author to make sure the link targets are defined.
>
> In contrast, for type-level type parameters which are always linked by
> `javadoc`, the code in this PR generates the `id` attributes within the
> signature in the top-level heading if type parameters are not documented by
> `@param` tags.
Yes, I completely misunderstood the comment the first time I read it. My
apologies for the noise. The effect you are actually
describing is good.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20494#issuecomment-2276632414
