Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sebbaz@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGRH7Hrw_u8HkqzbYPGD2-jkuQy9Wxwky_6+XrYkSoEFxPc3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120528083114.43AF123888FE@eris.apache.org>
	<20120528101256.GI10938@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
	<CAGRH7Hrj4eqvoP0bfj9vjAA_hMkzJ8i2jRdUK=An-UFgvvVffQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120528121707.GL10938@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
	<CAGRH7Hrw_u8HkqzbYPGD2-jkuQy9Wxwky_6+XrYkSoEFxPc3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 16:27:52 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAOGo0VZWo54miKB-x55ObEupt-iAisUMi2YNOeshP3ZAOqfoHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1343163 - in /commons/proper/math/trunk/src:
 main/java/org/apache/commons/math3/linear/
 test/java/org/apache/commons/math3/linear/
From: sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 28 May 2012 13:28, S=E9bastien Brisard <sebastien.brisard@m4x.org> wrote=
:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> 2012/5/28 Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>> Hello.
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Why do you call "valueOf"?
>>> >
>>> I have to say I do not like implicit conversions, that's why I tend to
>>> always use Integer.valueOf and the likes.
>>
>> Why?
>>
> This is going to get "philosophical": I would not dare to claim that
> I'm holding *the* truth, this is only my way of seeing things. I do
> not like things to happen implicitely, because I think that it opens a
> door to errors (this would not be true of professional programmers,
> but remember that I work in an environment where people are not real
> computer scientists... so my philosophy is "close as many doors as you
> can"...). I even think that J. Bloch has a nice example of potential
> issues with auto-boxing. However, I agree with you: calling valueOf in
> this context (that is: building a new exception) is certainly
> far-fetched.
>
> That was the initial reason why I moved from C++ to Java ten years
> ago: too many things happened "behind my back". Again, I'm not saying
> that C++ is evil. I'm just saying that I did not have the background
> with C++ to be fully aware of these implicit assumptions, and their
> potential consequences.
>
> I'm pretty sure I will not convince you on this. I hope I have at
> least convinced you that I have a good reason to do it this way :-)
>

I agree with you - making boxing explicit is better.

The reasoning is that implicit boxing/unboxing can hide ineffiicient
conversions as well as subtle bugs.
I've seen code which treats the same item variously as a Integer and
an int for no good reason.
The compiler warnings allow the careful programmer to investigate and
choose one or the other.

Yes, the code is a bit longer, but it clearly shows that the
boxing/unboxing was intended, and not an accident of compiler
"helpfulness".

>>> However, if you think that
>>> it leads to less readable code, I'm OK with your way of seeing things.
>>
>> Good! ;-)
>>
>> Gilles
>>
> As I said, I will remove these explicit boxings (but be warned: I've
> used valueOf() in the past, and do apologize for any unwanted
> occurence...).
>
> Best regards,
> S=E9bastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org