Richard Liang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please
correct
me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
Do you mean that you're going to follow the
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please correct
me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
Do you mean that you're going to follow the spec? If so, we sh
Richard Liang wrote:
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Richard Liang wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please correct
>>> me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean that you're going to follow the spec? If so, we should note
>> that
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please correct
me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
Do you mean that you're going to follow the spec? If so, we should note
that we're making a conscious decision to differ from the RI
Richard Liang wrote:
> For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please correct
> me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot.
>
Do you mean that you're going to follow the spec? If so, we should note
that we're making a conscious decision to differ from the RI.
geir
--
Richard Liang wrote:
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> This is a great example. The last two aren't even legal exceptions for
>> that method.
>>
>> It seems like the RI is doing random crap, and it wouldn't be something
>> that someone would depend on... can you imagine?
>>
>>
> Thanks a lo
On 7/7/06, Richard Liang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We may frequently encounter this confused situation, and I suggest we
discuss the problems case by case if someone is not sure how to do. ;-)
For this case, I decide to follow "useRadix(int radix)". Please correct
me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
This is a great example. The last two aren't even legal exceptions for
that method.
It seems like the RI is doing random crap, and it wouldn't be something
that someone would depend on... can you imagine?
Thanks a lot, Geir. There may be a great deal of these "gre
Richard Liang wrote:
Paulex Yang wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
When I'm trying to implement Scanner.nextInt(int radix), I met a
problem.
As we all know, Character.MIN_RADIX equals 2 and Character.MAX_RADIX
equals 36, so the parameter radix can not less than 2 or greater
than 36
Chris Gray wrote:
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:49, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
This is a great example. The last two aren't even legal exceptions for
that method.
It seems like the RI is doing random crap, and it wouldn't be something
that someone would depend on... can you imagine?
I
On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:49, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> This is a great example. The last two aren't even legal exceptions for
> that method.
>
> It seems like the RI is doing random crap, and it wouldn't be something
> that someone would depend on... can you imagine?
I think we have to distin
This is a great example. The last two aren't even legal exceptions for
that method.
It seems like the RI is doing random crap, and it wouldn't be something
that someone would depend on... can you imagine?
try {
Scanner.nextInt(foo);
}
catch {StringInxOutOfBndsEx bar) {
... real problem..
Anton Avtamonov wrote:
Hi Richard,
Very good example.
You are right, spec says nothing about invalid radix processing for
nextInt(). RI behavior just proves they have no guard check. However
useRadix() produces IAE for the invalid radix and the sound of logic
says that IAE is a proper reaction
Paulex Yang wrote:
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
When I'm trying to implement Scanner.nextInt(int radix), I met a
problem.
As we all know, Character.MIN_RADIX equals 2 and Character.MAX_RADIX
equals 36, so the parameter radix can not less than 2 or greater than
36, Otherwise that param
Richard Liang wrote:
Hello All,
When I'm trying to implement Scanner.nextInt(int radix), I met a problem.
As we all know, Character.MIN_RADIX equals 2 and Character.MAX_RADIX
equals 36, so the parameter radix can not less than 2 or greater than
36, Otherwise that parameter is illegal.
But o
Hi Richard,
Very good example.
You are right, spec says nothing about invalid radix processing for
nextInt(). RI behavior just proves they have no guard check. However
useRadix() produces IAE for the invalid radix and the sound of logic
says that IAE is a proper reaction for wrong radix in any me
Hello All,
When I'm trying to implement Scanner.nextInt(int radix), I met a problem.
As we all know, Character.MIN_RADIX equals 2 and Character.MAX_RADIX
equals 36, so the parameter radix can not less than 2 or greater than
36, Otherwise that parameter is illegal.
But on RI, when the paramet
17 matches
Mail list logo
