commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (MATH-370) NaN in "equals" methods
Date Sat, 15 May 2010 19:09:42 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-370?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12867900#action_12867900
] 

Phil Steitz commented on MATH-370:
----------------------------------

Looking carefully at the uses inside [math] and reviewing my own uses, I agree now that the
original definitions of equals(double, double) and equals(double, double, double) were incorrect,
or I guess I should say "unfortunate."  Regarding equals(double, double), I don't see why
we need that at all - just deprecate and replace by "equalsN" or somesuch or remove it altogether
in 3.0. The uses of equals(double, double, double)  in the linear package should NOT identify
NaNs, so these would benefit from changing behavior.  The uses in the stats package of the
array version are OK, I think - i.e., I think it is a legitimate definition of equals for
a stats reporting object to identify stats that report NaNs in the same places.

So the question is what to do.  I don't think we can change the contracts or delete methods
in point releases, so the reasonable thing to do is to 

1) deprecate equals(double, double) 
2) Make a note in the javadoc for equals(double[], double[]) and equals(double, double, double)
indicating that in version 3.0 these methods will handle NaNs differently.
3) Fix equals(double, double, int).  This method does not use equals(double, double) and does
not specify how NaNs are handled in its javadoc, so it can be fixed.

> NaN in "equals" methods
> -----------------------
>
>                 Key: MATH-370
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-370
>             Project: Commons Math
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Gilles
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In "MathUtils", some "equals" methods will return true if both argument are NaN.
> Unless I'm mistaken, this contradicts the IEEE standard.
> If nobody objects, I'm going to make the changes.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message