I've noticed that the documentation of Number.longValue says:
> Returns the value of the specified number as a long, which may involve
> rounding or truncation.
BigInteger and BigDecimal does not seem to honor this contract since they
implement this method by masking out the lower bits of the n
Andreas,
this didn't get attention in the past. You can now find your report at
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8067669
I'll leave it up to maths engineers to determine if the Number API needs
improving.
regards,
Sean.
On 16/12/2014 12:55, Andreas Lundblad wrote:
I've noticed that
Andreas,
Doesn’t the class documentation of Number [1] provide sufficient clarity, to
wit:
" The specific semantics of the conversion from the numeric value of a
particular Number implementation to a given primitive type is defined by the
Number implementation in question.”
and
“[…] conversi
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 03:18:49PM -0800, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Andreas,
>
> Doesn’t the class documentation of Number [1] provide sufficient clarity, to
> wit:
>
> "The specific semantics of the conversion from the numeric value of a
> particular Number implementation to a given primitive
On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Andreas Lundblad
wrote:
> Right. As it stands now the class level description says "the semantics of
> the conversion is defined by the Number implementation in question", and then
> the documentation of longValue narrows this down to "rounding or truncation".
>
On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Andreas Lundblad
wrote:
> Another suggestion would be:
>
> "Returns the value of the specified number as a {@code long}. The specific
> semantics of the conversion is defined by the subclass in question."
Does something like the following seem reasonable?
Brian
Hello,
On 12/19/2014 2:39 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
On Dec 17, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Andreas Lundblad
wrote:
Another suggestion would be:
"Returns the value of the specified number as a {@code long}. The specific semantics
of the conversion is defined by the subclass in question."
Does some
On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:26 PM, joe darcy wrote:
> I don't really think the current text is problematic; however, if it is to be
> changed, I recommending including a citation to the "Narrowing primitive
> conversion" section of the Java Language Specification. This can be
> accomplished using t
