Any objections to fixing this?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@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.
>
> You are right that the impl looks like it could be improved to stop
> checking when it has found a violation.
>
> Phil
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/11 4:33 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> >>> Gilles,
> >>>
> >>> I do not understand why a non-monotone collection should throw a
> >>> IllegalArgumentException...? There is nothing wrong with the argument,
> it
> >>> just is not in corrected order. Wouldn't it be better to return a
> false?
> >> I think as you guys are pretty much agreeing, we are talking about
> >> two different methods here. The "check*" methods are really there
> >> to help with parameter checking, so it makes sense for them to throw
> >> when what they are "checking" fails. What you want should probably
> >> be called "isMonotone." That would also be useful and could be
> >> called by the check method.
> >>
> >> As a side note, I notice now that "NonMonotonousSequenceException"
> >> is misnamed. It should be "NonMonotoneSequenceException." I think
> >> it would be good to fix that for 3.0.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>> We have:
> >>>
> >>> if (!ok && abort) {
> >>> throw new NonMonotonousSequenceException(val[i],
> >> previous,
> >>> i, dir, strict);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Why throw this? Why not return false and let the code calling this
> method
> >>> decide if it wants to throw an exception?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
> >>> gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:17:59PM -0500, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
> >>>>> Meant to say add, not replace. My apologies. -Greg
> >>>> I like this better! ;-)
> >>>> [But, still, please check the intended meaning of the first argument
> of
> >>>> (sub-classes of) "MathIllegalArgumentException".]
> >>>>
> >>>> Gilles
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
