On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:19:29 GMT, Justin Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't have a specific example, so I've reverted to my original check. I'm
>> a bit unsettled by the check for an extreme value later in `doubleValue()`
>> comparing against `MIN_DECIMAL_EXPONENT - 1`
>
> IMO, the original check you had is easier to understand what is happening
> without further context, so I prefer your switch back.
>
> I think we are fine from (negative) "extreme values" in `doubleValue()`
> because of the check you have implemented in the first place. i.e. we avoid
> any potential underflow from `int exp = decExponent - kDigits;`. I think we
> do need a comment to accompany the check. (Why do we check? why not check the
> max exponent value?)
>
> Also, should the check be against `MIN_DECIMAL_EXPONENT - 1` for consistency
> with `doubleValue()`? (Functionally, I don't think it matters.)
Suggestion:
if (decExp <= MIN_DECIMAL_EXPONENT) {
This is just a note for future enhancements. No need for a new commit, as the
current version is correct and avoids the underflow in `doubleValue()`.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25644#discussion_r2242727180
