hg: jdk7/tl/jdk: 6860431: Character.isSurrogate(char ch)

Ulf Zibis Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de
Wed Sep 2 19:46:52 UTC 2009

Am 02.09.2009 19:11, David M. Lloyd schrieb:
> On 09/02/2009 12:03 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 09:40, David M. Lloyd <david.lloyd at redhat.com 
>> <mailto:david.lloyd at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>     Why not just do {@code \uD800}?  I'm like 60% sure that would work
>>     just fine. :-)
>> I'm pretty sure it would fail.   Prove me wrong!
>> Searching the JDK sources for regex
>> ^ *\*.*\\u[0-9a-fA-F]{4}
>> is a good way to find javadoc bugs, e.g.
>> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/String.html#toLowerCase() 
> Ah, you're right.  It worked in my previewer but not in the actual 
> javadoc.  It's pretty bad that that sequence has special meaning but 
> you can't escape a \ with another \.  I guess in the worst case you 
> could always do \u005CD800 or something like that.

Looks little better, but not much. Did somebody tried it (Martin)?

If it works in a previewer, is there any chance to change the javadoc 
spec, staying backwards compatible?


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list