commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rob Tompkins (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Resolved] (LANG-1040) Javadoc for NumberUtils.isNumber() are not clear enough
Date Sun, 11 Sep 2016 20:38:21 GMT


Rob Tompkins resolved LANG-1040.
       Resolution: Fixed
    Fix Version/s:     (was: Discussion)
                   3.5 fixes this.

> Javadoc for NumberUtils.isNumber() are not clear enough
> -------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LANG-1040
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Lang
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: lang.math.*
>    Affects Versions: 3.3.2
>            Reporter: Duncan Jones
>            Assignee: Rob Tompkins
>             Fix For: 3.5
> The Javadocs for {{NumberUtils.isNumber()}} do not clearly define what a valid number
is. The current trunk documentation states:
> {quote}Checks whether the String a valid Java number.
> Valid numbers include hexadecimal marked with the 0x or 0X qualifier, octal numbers,
scientific notation and numbers marked with a type qualifier (e.g. 123L).
> Non-hexadecimal strings beginning with a leading zero are treated as octal values. Thus
the string 09 will return false, since 9 is not a valid octal value. However, numbers beginning
with 0. are treated as decimal.
> Null and empty String will return false.{quote}
> In other Jira issues, I've seen people suggest that a number if valid if it can be used
when assigning to a suitable Java type. E.g. {{"FOO"}} is a valid number if {{long x = FOO}}
is valid (where {{long}} might be another numeric type). If this is the case, we should state
> Alternatively, the definition could be in terms of what is accepted by {{createNumber()}}.
> Or we define exactly what we accept by specifying a grammar in the Javadocs.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message