Without comments on the contents of the patch, a change in documented
behavior would require a ccc request.
Cheers,
-Joe
On 10/3/2013 5:58 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
I have reviewed this proposed change a couple of times in its current form and
it looks good to me.
It would be good to see some comments about the general concept from BigInt
cognoscenti, and from (a) Reviewer(s) as concerns the @implNote addition as
well as the new ArithmeticExceptions added at several points in the javadoc.
With respect to these latter, in the event the patch were to be approved, would
a CCC request be in order?
Brian
On Oct 1, 2013, at 7:50 PM, cowwoc wrote:
Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification.
Gili
On 01/10/2013 9:25 PM, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
I see that I misused the word "to clamp" in this discussion.
I guess that addition with "clumping" means:
return x + y < MIN_VALUE ? MIN_VALUE : x + y > MAX_VALUE ? MAX_VALUE : x +
y;
The patch actually throws ArithmeticException on overflow:
if (x + y < MIN_VALUE || x + y > MAX_VALUE) throw new ArithmetiException();
else return x + y;
The word "clamp" appeared in the discussion only.
Comments in the patch don't contain it. They say:
BigInteger constructors and operations throw {@code
ArithmeticException} whenthe result is out of the supported range.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:45 PM, cowwoc <cow...@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
I prefer throwing exceptions on unusual conditions (e.g. overflow) and
letting the user clamp the value if they so wish. Clamping will lead to
unexpected behavior once values fall outside this range. Yes, it will be
documented, but I daresay most applications won't ever check for it and
produce incorrect results as a consequence.
Gili
On 01/10/2013 2:19 PM, Dmitry Nadezhin wrote:
Dear BigInteger experts,
Do you have comments to my previous message ?
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/**pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-**
September/021264.html<http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-September/021264.html>
