Document the need to use erased types for type variables, too. - #6021
Merged
Conversation
And remove the suggestion that Javadoc is likely to support generics in references in the future: [JDK-5096551](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-5096551) has been rejected (in addition to being over twenty years old). (In practice, `javadoc` is quite lenient about accepting [anything that looks like a syntactically valid Java class name](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8279474). But InvalidLink and IntelliJ are at least sometimes not, and `javadoc` may change. PiperOrigin-RevId: 963575165
copybara-service
Bot
force-pushed
the
test_958608251
branch
from
August 12, 2026 18:48
0f01394 to
438a123
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Document the need to use erased types for type variables, too.
And remove the suggestion that Javadoc is likely to support generics in references in the future: JDK-5096551 has been rejected (in addition to being over twenty years old).
(In practice,
javadocis quite lenient about accepting anything that looks like a syntactically valid Java class name. But InvalidLink and IntelliJ are at least sometimes not, andjavadocmay change.