JDK-4869993 : Constant Field Value of type long ends in "l" but looks like "1", should be "L"
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 1.4.2
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: windows_2000
  • CPU: x86
  • Submitted: 2003-05-27
  • Updated: 2003-10-03
  • Resolved: 2003-10-03
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
5.0 tigerFixed
Description

Name: rmT116609			Date: 05/27/2003


FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
java version "1.4.2-beta"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.2-beta-b19)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.2-beta-b19, mixed mode)

FULL OS VERSION :
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]

A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
The string "public static final long MAX_VALUE 9223372036854775807l" looks like "public static final long MAX_VALUE 92233720368547758071".  It should be changed to "public static final long MAX_VALUE 9223372036854775807L".
 

STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
Can be seen on JDK's javadoc, e.g.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/constant-values.html#java.lang.Long.MAX_VALUE

(Review ID: 186553) 
======================================================================
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: tiger FIXED IN: tiger INTEGRATED IN: tiger
14-06-2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS Fixed as requested by ###@###.### as a side-effect of: 4904495: Doclet API: support for annotations and annotation types Verified by going to: doc/api/constant-values.html and searching for: public static final long ACTION_EVENT_MASK 128L ###@###.### 2003-10-02
02-10-2003
EVALUATION > Any objection to changing the "l" to an uppercase "L" to avoid this confusion? ###@###.### wrote: Please do. In general we should never use the "small L" prefix, for this reason. I should mention this in the next ed. of my book:) > (Should we keep other letters lowercase, such as "d"?) Yes, I think so. It look more "java-like." ###@###.### 2003-05-28 The offending code is in src/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javadoc/FieldDocImpl.java in the method constantValueExpression() ###@###.### 2003-05-28
28-05-2003