Hi Gilles, 2012/9/12 Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:46:29AM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> 2012/9/10 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >> > On 9/10/12 11:47 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> What should I do there? >> >> I'm trying to work on MATH-854. It turns out that FieldElement<T>.add >> >> throws a NAE. Should I catch it below, and rethrow it with a more >> >> detailed message (including the entry index)? >> > >> > IMO, yes. >> > >> > I would also check v itself and add to the javadoc contract that IAE >> > is thrown if v is null. This is not consistently done in [math], >> > though, and rarely in the linear package, so I am OK just letting >> > the NPE propagate if v is null. It is a little awkward that v >> > itself being null leads to NPE, but a component of it null leads to >> > MIAE. >> > >> I agree with you, it feels weird. I found a better way: we need to >> make sure that entries of FieldVector can *never* be null. This means >> checking for null in setters, constructors and the likes. What do you >> think? > > That would certainly simplify some code. > But (devil's advocate) should we consider that some people may rely on the > possibility to set "null" entries? > Yes, didn't think of that. However, the javadoc does not specify that null is allowed. So referring to earlier discussions, that should mean that it is forbidden... I'm stretching the argument a little bit, I know. Sébastien
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
