> -----Original Message----- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:04 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > Phil Steitz wrote: > > My philosophy on this is that whatever exceptions we define should be > > "close" to the components that throw them -- e.g. ConvergenceException. > > I do not like the idea of a generic "MathException." As much as > > possible, I think that we should rely on the built-ins (including the > > extensions recently added to lang). Regarding > ConvergenceException, I am > > on the fence for inclusion in the initial release, though I see > > something like this as eventually inevitable. Correct me if I > am wrong, > > but the only place that this is used now is in the dist package and we > > could either just throw a RuntimeException directly there or > return NaN. > > I do see the semantic value of ConvergenceException, however. > > There are several approaches to design a concept for exceptions, > all of which have pros and cons. I personally would suggest to > avoid returning NaNs and throwing RuntimeExceptions whereever > possible and use a package specific hierarchy of declared exceptions > instead. > > J.Pietschmann
I would agree whole-heartedly. Brent Worden http://www.brent.worden.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
