Community
Participate
Working Groups
I20071031-0010 The pattern syntax for SearchPattern#createPattern(String, ..) should be documented in createPattern's Javadoc. Some (unpolished) documentation is available in the Javadoc of the private methods #createMethodOrConstructorPattern(String, int, int, boolean), #createFieldPattern(String, int, int), and #createTypePattern(String, int, int, char) The syntax for method and constructor patterns looks strange. E.g. for this example: package foo; public class XXX<E> { public <T>XXX() {} void refs() { new <String>foo.XXX<Integer>(); new <Object>foo.XXX<Float>(); } } ... , the syntax suggests: foo.<String>XXX() ... , although a fully qualified constructor reference has the first type arguments before the qualification and a second type arguments list after the method name: <String>foo.XXX<Integer>()
Move to 3.4M5 as I also want to fix the syntax problem noticed in the documentation for constructor and method patterns.
Created attachment 87887 [details] Proposed patch Now accept the following syntax for constructor: ['<' typeArguments '>'] [declaringQualification '.'] type ['(' parameterTypes ')'] But of cousre, still accept the old one for backward compatibility
Created attachment 87976 [details] Nitpicking Looks good. Please find my proposed changes in the attached patch (to HEAD).
(In reply to comment #3) > Created an attachment (id=87976) [details] > Nitpicking > > Looks good. Please find my proposed changes in the attached patch (to HEAD). > I would say 'improvement' rather than 'nitpicking'... I have obviously released the proposed patch. Thanks Markus :-) Released for 3.4M5 in HEAD stream
Verified for 3.4M5 using build I20080204-0010.