> Am 05.05.2014 um 22:20 schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > >> On 5 May 2014 18:40, Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> we have a pull request at github for [lang] which proposes to introduce new >> methods in NumberUtils that take varargs as input parameters instead of >> arrays [1]. I think a better solution would be to change those old methods >> to use varargs instead of introducing new methods. Since I'm not sure how >> this affects binary compatibility, I'd like to here what others thing about >> this. >> >> Clirr doesn't even create an info for a change like this, so I'm assuming >> it can be changed without affecting clients. > > In most cases, the effect is the same, but there are some edge cases > according to > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5405673/java-varags-method-param-list-vs-array > > However, I don't like the proposed solution which needs new names.
Yes, I don't like that either. > One way round this might be to extend the existing methods as follows: > > max(a,b,c,...) This would be a solution. But why not change max(a[]) to max(a...) if it is binary compartible? The corner case mentioned in the stackoverflow article seems to be about generic varargs parameters. > > I think this was already done in some Commons code? I've had a brief look at StringUtils. There were some changes like this documented by they happend to be implemented in 3.0, so I was unsure :-) > >> Benedikt >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/23 >> >> -- >> http://people.apache.org/~britter/ >> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ >> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter >> http://github.com/britter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
