On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/12/12 11:27 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I
> > suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause.
>
> I probably should have responded earli
Hi Phil,
thanks for this answer.
2012/9/13 Phil Steitz :
> On 9/12/12 11:27 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I
>> suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause.
>
> I probably should have responded earlier that
On 9/12/12 11:27 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Dear all,
> in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I
> suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause.
I probably should have responded earlier that I personally disagree
with that conclusion. What is advertised i
Hi Sébastien.
> > [...]
> Right, this means I must revert (again!) my changes... We will get
> there, eventually.
Knowing that it was a huge effort (to get everything right), I had set 3.2
as the target for MATH-854.
IMHO, there is no urgency to fix it in the coming days. After all, there is
noth
Hi,
2012/9/13 Gilles Sadowski :
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:04:52PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2012/9/13 Gilles Sadowski :
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > I'm also feeling tired of those issues. I must point out that this seems so
>> > complicated _because_ we depart from best practices (
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:04:52PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/9/13 Gilles Sadowski :
> > Hello.
> >
> > I'm also feeling tired of those issues. I must point out that this seems so
> > complicated _because_ we depart from best practices (as finely described in
> > e.g. "Effectiv
Hi,
2012/9/13 Gilles Sadowski :
> Hello.
>
> I'm also feeling tired of those issues. I must point out that this seems so
> complicated _because_ we depart from best practices (as finely described in
> e.g. "Effective Java").
> Whatever seems a help (and probably is sometimes) in one direction lead
Hello.
I'm also feeling tired of those issues. I must point out that this seems so
complicated _because_ we depart from best practices (as finely described in
e.g. "Effective Java").
Whatever seems a help (and probably is sometimes) in one direction leads to
inconsistencies in another, like in thi
Dear all,
in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I
suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause.
So, yesterday, I started modifying the javadoc of FieldVector. Each
"throws" clause was simply replaced by the following statement
"Implementations should throw [..
