On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:32:54AM +0000, sebb wrote: > On 23 February 2012 11:19, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:55:51AM +0000, sebb wrote: > >> On 16 February 2012 16:17, <l...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > Author: luc > >> > Date: Thu Feb 16 16:17:14 2012 > >> > New Revision: 1245061 > >> > > >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1245061&view=rev > >> > Log: > >> > Removed unneeded clone. > >> > > >> > The clone did not protect the array used, only the reference ones. > >> > JIRA: MATH-650 > >> > >> -1 > >> > >> That was the whole point of the clone - to protect the original external > >> data. > > > > Please (re-)explain what you mean by "protect". Cf. my comment on the > > JIRA page. > > See also your comment of 30/Nov/11 00:31.
I know, but my latest comment overrides that one. > The arrays in FastMathLiteralArrays are private, but the access > methods are not, and returning an array allows the caller to modify > array elements. It's true, but unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't matter since in the end there is one and only one array that will be _used_ (the modified one) and having a pristine copy somewhere else will not prevent the dire consequences of using the modified one... ;-/ > If you don't want the memory overhead of a clone, then one could use > array entry getters instead. It's not that: It is because "clone" gives a false sense of security. Yes, getters would be _really_ secure, as they would prevent an inadvertant CM developer to commit a bug in the "FastMath" class. But a _user_ of "FastMath" can anyways never access the arrays (as the references/copies are "private" to "FastMath"), so I was wondering whether the additional layer of security was really worth it (in case a performance loss would accompany the getters; if not, then fine, fine). Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
