commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [math] Re: Single root for Exceptions
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:37:26 GMT
> > No, you are not missing anything. Having only the javadoc without the
> > declaration in the signature is a pain. I would prefer to keep both. 
> +1
> Just "going boom" with an unadvertised RTE is not acceptable
> behavior.  We used to be very good about documenting and advertising
> all exceptions generated by [math].

The use of the past tense is not necessary. It's not because Luc found _one_
instance of a lacking documentation (in a code which he wrote) that the
current situation on this front is worse than it "used" to be.

>  I would very much like to see
> us get back to that level of API quality.

Again, please point to actual examples of lacking quality, especially in the
area of exceptions advertising.

[To point to just one example of (relatively minor, maybe, but actual) poor
quality, please have a look to the bugs/inconsistencies uncovered by
S├ębastien in the area of sparse vectors.]

>  The fact that we can use
> Luc's trick to verify that we have not missed anything is enough to
> make me +1 for going back to a single root.

"Single root" and "Luc's trick" are totally unrelated.
Luc's trick only depends on having the exceptions appear in the throws
Single root is (sometimes) nicer for application developers (who do not have
to write multiple catch blocks).[1]


[1] It is the same kind of "being nice to users" that was one of the main
    drives to get rid of checked exceptions (so that user code does not have
    to be riddled with either "try" blocks or "throws" clauses).

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

View raw message