commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [math] Checking preconditions on package private functions
Date Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:42:00 GMT
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 06:24:26AM -0800, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Actually, I would still recommend checks.  You may know what the code does
> now, but you can't trust either yourself or somebody else in the future.
>  Better to do the checks.

I don't agree because in this case, the situation is akin to a bug. [And we
don't introduce checks after each statement to ensure that the statement
did what it should.]

Those _private_ methods are there just to group a set of statements which
are valid under the documented conditions. We should start to assume that
the documentation could be wrong... [If it is, that's also a bug.]


> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
>> wrote:
> > Then the answer would be: no
> > check (since you know exactly what usage is made).
> >

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

View raw message