The team isn't unanimous about this yet, but I think it's worth considering fully. I've filed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8346033 and gave my analysis of the situation there. I'll try to nudge it to some resolution - thanks for raising it!
> On Mon Dec 2 23:17:12 UTC 2024, Éamonn McManus emcmanus at google.com wrote: > > At Google, we've had several issues over the years relating to > Double.MIN_VALUE. People have not unreasonably supposed that > Double.MIN_VALUE has the same relationship to Double.MAX_VALUE as > Integer.MIN_VALUE has to Integer.MAX_VALUE. So they think that > Double.MIN_VALUE is the (finite) negative number of largest magnitude, > rather than the positive number of smallest magnitude. We're currently > thinking of adding a constant MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE to Guava's Doubles > <https://guava.dev/releases/snapshot-jre/api/docs/com/google/common/primitives/Doubles.html> > class > and having static analysis that suggests using that instead of > Double.MIN_VALUE, if that is indeed what you meant, or of course using > -Double.MAX_VALUE if *that* is what you meant. > > A few JDK and JavaFX bugs show that Google engineers are not the only ones > to be confused by this: > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-4218647 > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8092698 > https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8156186 > > So we also wonder if it would make sense to deprecate Double.MIN_VALUE > itself and introduce Double.MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE with the same meaning. > Obviously the same thing would apply to Float. >
