commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [Math] Issues 650, 675, 676
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2011 02:26:01 GMT
On 9 October 2011 18:16, Gilles Sadowski <> wrote:

>> This is slightly different from the original suggestion; IIRC that did
>> not include using getters.
> I put getters because you asked them. But, indeed, there is no difference
> with direct accessing the arrays since the getters do not return a copy: it
> is possible to modify the "original" array.

Those are *not* the getters I was referring to.

I intended the getter to return an array element, not the array, so as
to protect the array contents.

As you point out, there's absolutely no point having the getter otherwise.

The current implementation is not particularly secure against
malicious or accidental tampering.

That is why I left the arrays in the same source file originally, as
it allows the arrays to be automatically protected, without needing a

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message