On Dec 15, 2016 6:03 AM, "Jörg Schaible"
wrote:
Hi Gary,
Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Gilles
> wrote:
[snip]
>> By the way, you don't need to refer to "Runtime" in the names;
>> all exceptions in such codes should be unchecked.
>>
>
> I would say "it depends". An ex
Hi Gary,
Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Gilles
> wrote:
[snip]
>> By the way, you don't need to refer to "Runtime" in the names;
>> all exceptions in such codes should be unchecked.
>>
>
> I would say "it depends". An exception should be checked if it is
> recoverable.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:01:35 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Two bad code smells:
>>
>> Do not use RuntimeException. Is IllegalArgumentException a possibility?
>>
>
> Sure, the standard exception closest to the situation should be used.
>
>
>> Don'
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:01:35 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> Two bad code smells:
>>
>> Do not use RuntimeException. Is IllegalArgumentException a possibility?
>>
>
> Sure, the standard exception closest to the situation should be used.
>
>
>> Don'
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:01:35 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
Two bad code smells:
Do not use RuntimeException. Is IllegalArgumentException a
possibility?
Sure, the standard exception closest to the situation should be used.
Don't throw the exception in the new method, you will loose the
compli
Two bad code smells:
Do not use RuntimeException. Is IllegalArgumentException a possibility?
Don't throw the exception in the new method, you will loose the complier's
ability to warn you about certain code paths. You can create the exception
in a new method though.
Gary
On Dec 13, 2016 5:57 AM
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> In "Commons RNG", I completely dropped all custom-made exceptions.
> I suggest you do the same here.
> IMO, "simple", low-level, components can do with just throwing
> runtime exceptions from the standard library (with a hard-coded
> _English_ mes
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:44:34 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Eric Barnhill
wrote:
I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here
rather than
in the commons-complex JIRA.
The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
-- commons-
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> Hello Eric.
>
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:19:54 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote:
>
>> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than
>> in the commons-complex JIRA.
>>
>> The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three pa
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Eric Barnhill
wrote:
> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than
> in the commons-complex JIRA.
>
> The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
>
> -- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
-- commons-m
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:26:53 -0800, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
Hi Eric,
Eric Barnhill wrote:
> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here
rather
than
> in the commons-complex JIRA.
>
> The Complex library has multiple dep
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Jörg Schaible
wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Barnhill wrote:
>
> > I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather
> than
> > in the commons-complex JIRA.
> >
> > The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
> >
> > -- common
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Eric Barnhill
wrote:
> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than
> in the commons-complex JIRA.
>
> The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
>
> -- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
> -- commons-
Hello Eric.
On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 14:19:54 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote:
I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather
than
in the commons-complex JIRA.
The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
-- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
Do y
Hi Eric,
Eric Barnhill wrote:
> I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than
> in the commons-complex JIRA.
>
> The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
>
> -- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
> -- commons-math exceptions
> -- c
I thought it would be good to raise a structural question here rather than
in the commons-complex JIRA.
The Complex library has multiple dependencies on three packages:
-- commons-math base classes (e.g. Field et al.)
-- commons-math exceptions
-- commons-math util (numerous classes)
Otherwise i
16 matches
Mail list logo