> >>> A simpler policy would be to not check for "null" and let the JVM do it. > >>> As > >>> the JVM will do it anyway, it's a redundant check when the reference is > >>> not > >>> null, i.e. most of time (in legitimate usage). > >> This simpler policy seems fine to me. > >> However, it is an important change from previous behaviour. > > Sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean by the "simpler > policy." Which one do you mean: > > 0) remove null checks uniformly and just let NPEs propagate everywhere
Yes. > 1) remove NPE wrappers, propagating uwrapped NPEs where the code > wraps and rethrows NPE today. I don't understand this. I didn't find occurrences where a NPE is wrapped into something else. > 2) other? > > I am -1 on 0), since this would result in loss of FFC info available > in the cases where we rethrow NPE as IAE with an exception message > indicating which argument was null (like the examples below). What does FFC mean? I think that using IAE instead of NPE does not bring any added value. It justs goes against standard usage: throw NPE when a reference is "null" and is not allowed to be so. As proposed in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-401 we could still do explicit checks for "null" but nevertheless throw the standard (non-specific and non localized) NPE. > [...] Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
