On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 07:21:02 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> But you don't know that without looking. Really, though, if I were going to >> make a readability argument, it's the divisor that should be a double >> constant, since then there is no question that the division is happen in >> double. >> >> I don't care too much in this case. I was just making a general point. > > You are correct that with these kind of changes you can't see if it is > correct just from looking at the diff. Variables would need to be named more > explicitly, or explicit casts would need to be added to repeat the type > information. If the goal is to make it clear in the diff, then many places > would benefit from explicit casts (probably in more places than where they > were removed). I think the general trend is to avoid explicit casts, but I > could be wrong. > > I can revert these changes and we can disable the warning. > > Specifically about this code, `rotationStartTime` probably should not have > been a `double` depending on what is stored in it (checking: its source is > `System.nanoTime()`) as the conversion from `long` to `double` will lose > precision in the area where it really counts as it wants to see the > difference of the current and last value, so in this case the warning may > have exposed a (precision) bug. +1 for reverting the changes and disabling the warning ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/960
