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

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Wed Sep 2 20:29:16 UTC 2009

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:46, Ulf Zibis<Ulf.Zibis at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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)?

Well.... learn something new every day.
Let's turn this into a fix.
It's yet another "turkish i" bug.


Xueming, please file a bug and review.

Synopsis: Unreadable \uXXXX in javadoc
Description: Replace \uXXXX by \u005CXXXX, or simply delete


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

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list