Use of the {@code } tag

M

Martin

Hello there,

can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented? What's the difference or gain in using one
over the other?

Thanks for your thoughts,
Martin
 
L

Lew

Martin said:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read the
documentation.
<http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/javadoc.html#@code>
 
R

Roedy Green

can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented? What's the difference or gain in using one
over the other?

Vector is a very old class, going back to 1.0 or 1.1.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
~ Charles Babbage (born: 1791-12-26 died: 1871-10-18 at age: 79)
 
L

Lew

Dave Searles said:
How rude.

Coming from Mr. Potty-Mouth himself, that's quite the assessment. Why
don't you cast the beam out of your own eye before decrying the mote
in other people's?

What's rude is not quoting the helpful link
<http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/
javadoc.html#@code>
in order to make the post look worse than it was.

It was nothing but the simple truth. Had he read the documentation,
he would have seen that the tag is documented and that it's not new.

What part of that do you regard as false?

Do you think that people should ignore the documentation when making
judgments about its completeness? I don't. The least the OP could
have done was read the documentation before claiming that it didn't
have the information that it, in fact, did have. In fact, it's good
practice for all professional Java programmers to review the
documentation when faced with a Java puzzler.

It's simply aMAZing how often the documentation contains the answers
to one's questions, isn't it, "Dave Searles"? The great majority of
questions in this forum I don't know the answer to when I read the
question, but I do within ten minutes of elementary searching. I
mean, come on, how hard is it to take a gander at java.sun.com and
www.google.com to get an answer? Hmm?
 
L

Lew

Mike said:
   That's good. No problem there.

Other than the OP's failure to read the basic documentation.

Mike said:
   This is a needless jibe. Remember, only you can prevent forest flames. :)

Just the facts, not a jibe. One would know this if one read the
documentation. One should have read the documentation. If one is not
in the habit of reading documentation, one will never be a good
programmer. Why respect those who don't even put in the very minimal
effort to read the most basic documentation?

Too many people treat Usenet discussion groups as an unpaid helpdesk
when all they have to do is read the most elementary, obvious and very
available documentation. Don't blame me for the OP's lack of
responsibility.
 
D

Dave Searles

Lew said:
Lew said:
How rude.

[personal attacks deleted]

How rude.
What's rude is not quoting the helpful link
<http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/solaris/
javadoc.html#@code>
in order to make the post look worse than it was.

I didn't omit quoting that to make you look bad. I omitted quoting that
because it was irrelevant. It wasn't the bit I was replying to and
therefore quoting it was unnecessary use of bandwidth.
What part of that do you regard as false?

Did I claim that any of it was false? No. I claimed that the way you
stated it was rude. It was blunt and it browbeat poor Mr. Nimoth, making
him out to be some sort of fool or ignoramus in public.

Try a little more delicacy next time.
The least the OP could have done was read the documentation before
claiming that it didn't have the information that it, in fact, did
have.

And now you're calling him a liar, again with no basis in fact. Most
likely, he did read the documentation, but not especially recently, and
did not recall (or back when he'd read it it did not have) that part.
[personal attack deleted]

How rude.
 
D

Dave Searles

Lew said:
Other than the OP's failure

And here you go again, with the personal attacks. Are you incapable of
discussing Java without dragging your personal, negative opinions of
pretty much everybody else in existence into it?
Just the facts, not a jibe.

We disagree.
Why respect those who don't even put in the very minimal effort to read
the most basic documentation?

As I mentioned in another post, he probably did read it, but not recently.

You seem to think that everyone not only should read the documentation,
but that they should reread it rather frequently.

Most of us have jobs that kinda require us to spend a lot of time
actually coding, or doing other things, rather than reading, and so tend
to read something only once, and maybe again if we get a clear
indication that it may have changed since the last time.

Regardless, "why respect"? Everyone should be accorded a certain level
of respect -- all human beings. Respect for someone's skills as a Java
programmer I can see being predicated upon their familiarity with Java.
However, respect for someone as a fellow human being should be
automatic, and withdrawn, if at all, only for serious crimes and active
malice.

Part of that basic level of respect is not dropping gratuitous personal
attacks into one's posts, and avoiding jeers, jibes, and similarly
bully-ish behavior. In particular, any behavior motivated more by a
desire to annoy, bedevil, or embarrass another person should be checked
at the door.

In your case, I don't think intentional malice plays a large role. I
think it's more likely you just blurt out blunt assertions and
poorly-phrased requests (that come off as demands) out of ... not
exactly ignorance either, but an inconsiderate, unthinking knee-jerk
response.

Try thinking a bit about what you post the next time you post, and maybe
consider rephrasing it to be less inconsiderate of your target's feelings.
Too many people treat Usenet discussion groups as an unpaid helpdesk

If you feel put-upon to that extent, leave. You are a volunteer under no
obligation to stay. Staying but being churlish and ill-tempered does not
ultimately do anyone much good.

Of course, you've probably been told all of this before, and probably by
more than one other person, so there's probably little chance of you
even acknowledging this, but I guess it's worth a shot.
 
R

Robert Klemme

Arne said:
Dave said:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read the
documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

Where do you take that from? I cannot see anything like this in Arne's
posting.
No, you are.

Last time I heard something like this I must have been 13 or so. It's
sad to see a community decline that way.

Regards

robert
 
D

Dave Searles

Robert said:
Arne said:
Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

[says I'm a liar]

No, you are.
No, you are.

[personal attack deleted]

Wrong.
 
A

alexandre_paterson

[personal attacks deleted]

How rude.

I 100% considered Lew's reply as rude too.


Your question avoids the fact and you know it. Do you
think it's impossible to construct a sentence that's correct
and yet rude?

Did I claim that any of it was false? No. I claimed that the way you
stated it was rude. It was blunt and it browbeat poor Mr. Nimoth, making
him out to be some sort of fool or ignoramus in public.
exactly.


Try a little more delicacy next time.

I 100% agree.

Facts and politeness are not mutually exclusive.


Here you go again.

This is rude. And sad.

Lew, I honnestly think you should shill out.

This newsgroup is about helping people, not about showing of
one's JavaDoc search/grep'ing skills and then bragging about
it in a rude way.

And it's certainly not about insulting people pointing out
how rude they think your answers are.

Dave Searles ain't the only one to find your tone rude and
the probability that both him and me aren't the only two
finding your tone rude is, IMHO, not approaching zero.

So maybe, just maybe, that the time of self-questionning
has come for you Lew?
 
R

Robert Klemme

Robert said:
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Dave Searles wrote:
Lew wrote:
Martin wrote:
can someone tell me which style is preferred or recommended for
use of
code keywords? I used to use <code> as suggested in the javadoc API
and other sources. However, I just found that, for example, the
java.util.Vector class makes use of the {@code } tag. Is that a new
one not yet documented?

It's not new and it is documented, as you would know if you read
the documentation.

How rude.

[says I'm a liar]

[says I'm a liar]

No, you are.

I was just asking:

Where do you take that from? I cannot see anything like this in Arne's posting.

Since I'm not a native speaker I could have missed something. I do not
know why you chose to translate that as "says I'm a liar". I did not
call you a liar - I did not even want to insinuate that you are. I am
sorry if my wording caused such a perception.

Regards

robert
 
L

Lew

So maybe, just maybe, that the time of self-questionning [sic]
has come for you Lew?

Maybe, just maybe, the time has come for people to check the documentation
before claiming something is missing from it.
 
L

Lew

Robert said:
Since I'm not a native speaker I could have missed something. I do not
know why you chose to translate that as "says I'm a liar". I did not
call you a liar - I did not even want to insinuate that you are. I am
sorry if my wording caused such a perception.

It's not your fault, it's the troll's.
 
D

Dave Searles

Lew said:
So maybe, just maybe, that the time of self-questionning [sic]
has come for you Lew?

Maybe, just maybe, the time has come for people to check the
documentation before claiming something is missing from it.

Lew is clearly beyond redemption, Alexandre.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,582
Members
45,065
Latest member
OrderGreenAcreCBD

Latest Threads

Top