On 10/06/2010, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would count this as a bug fix rather than a compatibility break. (my vote > is non-binding, of course) >
I agree that the current behaviour is wrong. Unfortunately, the current behaviour is documented in the Javadoc, so it would be a compatibility break. > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Bill Barker <billwbar...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Currently StatUtils.sum(double []) (as well as most other statistics that > > operate on arrays) returns NaN on a zero length array. As pointed out in > > the Jira issue, this is not the conventional treatment of a summation over > > the empty set (which would return zero) in the mathematical world. I would > > definitely want to change this in 3.0. But I'm on the fence for how much > of > > an incompatible change this would be for 2.2. > > > > The change is simple, and I'm volunteering to do the work. I just wanted > > to ping the list for opinions on how much breakage we can allow in 2.2. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
