Review Request : 7029997 : Restyling of SortedMap Javadoc
joe.darcy at oracle.com
Tue Mar 22 18:27:10 PDT 2011
On 3/22/2011 4:33 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>> 2) "Though nothing enforces this recommendation as interfaces cannot
>> declare constructors". I'd tend to move this statement to before
>> the list, and maybe put it in parantheses after constructors.
>> Also my personal preference is to stay with "there is no way to"
>> rather than "nothing". That would look like:
>> <p>All general-purpose sorted map implementation classes should
>> provide four "standard" constructors (though there is no way to
>> enforce this ...):
>> This is just my personal preference. I'm ok with your changes as is.
> How about this version :
> *<p>All general-purpose sorted map implementation classes should provide four
> * "standard" constructors. It is not possible to enforce this recommendation
> * though as required constructors cannot be specified by interfaces. The
> * expected "standard" constructors for all sorted map implementations are:
FWIW, while the requirement for a particular suite of constructors isn't
enforceable via the type system, it is the sort of extra-linguistic
check that could be written as a annotation processor and provided
during a compile to enforce the constraint.
More information about the core-libs-dev