commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Sterijevski <gsterijev...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Math] MathUtils.checkOrder
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:58:19 GMT
I agree with your assessment that having almost identical methods is a pain.
However, without doing this I need to return a very complicated set of
information from isMonotone to be able to construct the exception.

As for catching the exception, I was under the impression that CM code never
catches exceptions, you propagate them upwards on the call tree.

In thinking about this, maybe you are correct. The exception could be
pruned. I am reticent to do this because it looks like exceptions and
exception reporting are  sore subjects on for the developers on this
project?


On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 08:31:00PM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> > Any objections to fixing this?
>
> Having a method
>  public static boolean isMonotone(double[] val,
>                                   OrderDirection dir,
>                                   boolean strict)
> creates unnecessary duplicate code as it does the same thing as calling
>   public static boolean checkOrder(double[] val,
>                                   OrderDirection dir,
>                                   boolean strict,
>                                   boolean abort)
> with "abort" set to "false". This particular case of syntatic sugar does
> not
> warrant the code duplication IMHO.
>
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 9/21/11 6:11 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> > > > One more question, there is a boolean argument called 'abort', what
> sense
> > > > does it make to keep checking an array given you have found one
> > > observation
> > > > which violates monotonicity? I think abort is redundant and could be
> > > > eliminated. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Looks like what is there now actually combines "isMonotone" and
> > > "checkMonotone."  It returns a boolean and the abort parameter tells
> > > it whether or not to throw instead of returning false.  I would see
> > > a better separation of concerns to separate the two methods and let
> > > the caller decide which one to use and whether or not (and what) to
> > > throw when using isMonotone.
>
> IMO, the main purpose of the CM utilities is to help the CM developer in
> writing code that behave the same in similar situations across different
> parts of the library. So, the caller should not choose which exception to
> throw because the idea is that "checkOrder" will do what the policy
> requires.
> [If the exception really must be changed, it could be done by explicitly
> catching the "default" exception and rethrowing another one.]
>
> I agree that it is nicer to separate the concerns: ideally "checkOrder"
> should call "isMonotone"; but the problem is the *detailed* exception
> message which reporte the index in the array (where the monotonicity is
> not respected) and the values which are in the wrong order.
>
> Sort of combining the above, we note that a caller that would want to use
> "isMonotone" and throw his own exception, will not be able to recover the
> "detailed information" in order to report it.
> Do you think that the exception message (thus the exception class itself)
> should be simplified?  If so, we can indeed separate the concerns _and_
> avoid the code duplication.
>
>
> Gilles
>
> > [...]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message