On Monday 17 March 2008 11:12:53 Michael McCandless wrote:
> The javadocs used to say "this method returns null when there are no
> matching fields". I removed that. Maybe I should add back in "this
> method returns an empty array when there are no matching fields"?
I generally prefer that the javadoc explicitly says "does not return
null" or "returns null if and only if <condition>". This is a contract
and makes coding easier.
A note "this method returns an empty array when there are no matching
fields" is acceptable but IMO superfluous, if you know it doesn't
return null.
> Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Even if this improvement make sense, I think you broke some
> > compatibility
> > there.
Well - if you implement along the javadoc it should not break. The only
case in question is a test on zero elements (or any number of
elements). As the javadoc was unspecific this test had to be written
if (fieldables == null || fieldables.length == 0)
This will still work. However, if you code with the actual
implementation in mind (I don't) it may break.
Stefan
> >>> Key: LUCENE-1233
> >>> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/
> >>> LUCENE-1233
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
