commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [math] Double.NaN or NotStrictlyPositiveException?
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:56:50 GMT
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:25:46AM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 20/08/2012 05:51, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > the current implementation of Gamma.logGamma(double) fails silently when
> > the argument is not strictly positive, returning Double.NaN.
> > Previous discussions on this ML show that we all agree (do we?) that
> > throwing an exception is preferrable. Since I'm reimplementing this
> > function, I propose to change this behaviour. Do you think that would be
> > allowed in 3.1?
> 
> Yes, I think this kind of change can be introduced in a minro revision.
> 
> Luc
> 
> > 
> > I do not think it breaks binary compatibility. Neither does it break the
> > contract of this method, since (quite fortunately) its behavior was not
> > specified in the Javadoc!

Even if it would, in accordance to a very recent discussion, breaking
compatibility for correcting a bug would be a risk worth taking.


Best regards,
Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message